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

The Eucharist and the Real Presence

Posted on 01/05/2013 by Paul Pavao

I have never written, nor even attempted to write, a web page on the Eucharist (communion or Lord’s supper) in early Christian history. That is because I find the early Christian statements about the Eucharist to be too loose to provide precise, definitive answers on the ideas that divide Roman Catholics and some Protestants.

It has been very easy to say simply that the early churches—and the apostles—didn’t treat anything they did as “purely symbolic” or as “a public testimony.” Those two ideas are indefensible both Biblically and historically.

Today, though, I found a page—a Catholic page at that—which addresses the Eucharist/communion extremely well.

I was searching for early Eucharistic prayers on the web when I ran across a page called The Real Presence on Catholic.com.

I have more than my share of disagreements and battles with Roman Catholics. Almost all of the offense is because I deny their claim to be the one true church. I have several pages on Christian-history.org refuting their claim that the Roman bishop had papal authority in the early centuries of the church, and I think the horrendous behavior of the Roman hierarchy in medieval times is proof enough that it could not possibly, as an organization, be even “an” authority from God, much less “the” authority. (example)

Nonetheless, as an organization, they do have a lineage going back to the apostles, and their doctrines have evolved over the centuries from some original, apostolic doctrines. The more they have evolved, the less accurate they are, because the original job of the leadership of the Roman church, and every other apostolic church, was to preserve the teaching (also called “tradition”) of the apostles, not improve it (something which cannot be done).

It is unlawful to assert that [the apostles] preached before they had “perfect knowledge,” as some [i.e., gnostics] dare to 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, and had perfect knowledge.
   When we refer them to the tradition which originates from the apostles and which is preserved by means of the succession of elders in the churches, they object to tradition, saying that they are wiser not merely than the elders but even than the apostles!
   … [Irenaeus lists the Roman bishops up till his time here] … In this order and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition of the apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us. This is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the church from the apostles until now and handed down in truth.
   Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles … but was also appointed bishop [lit. overseer]of the church in Smyrna … When a very old man, gloriously and most notably suffering martyrdom, [he] departed this life, having always taught the things he learned from the apostles and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. … Then, again. the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul and having John remaining among them until the times of Trajan [A.D 98], is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III:1:1 – III:3:4, c. A.D. 185)

The Eucharist is one doctrine that has been taken to extremes in the idea of “Transubstantiation,” but the original tradition of the apostles is still easy to find in Roman Catholic teaching, backed up both by Scripture and by the writings of the earliest Christians.

The Real Presence on Catholic.com is an excellent defense of basic Roman Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. It avoids even discussing the excesses that “transubstantiation” has been taken to. As a result, it is the best short description and defense of apostolic teaching on the Eucharistic meal I have seen.

Transubstantiation

When I mention going overboard on “transubstantiation,” I mean, for example, that one Roman Catholic wrote to tell me that scientific tests have proven that the bread blessed in a Catholic Mass turns into actual human meat. This, of course, is a myth. I’m sure that most Roman Catholics would reject such an idea, and I know that it is not official Roman Catholic doctrine. On the other hand, there are numerous stories from the Reformation Era of Anabaptists who were tortured or put to death for refusing to acknowledge that the bread and wine of the Roman Catholic Eucharist was actual meat and blood. (Martyr’s Mirror preserves a number of interrogations conducted in the 17th century.)

By the sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them. (“Pope” Gelasius, A.D. 490, as cited by Bingham’s Antiquities, Bk. xv, ch. 5, found in note 1911 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001 reprint]; The note in ANF says A.D. 490, but Gelasius was bishop of Rome from 492-496; I cannot explain the discrepancy.)

“Eucharist”

The word “Eucharist” is from the Greek word Ευχαριστια, which means “thanksgiving.” It is the word most commonly used by the early churches to refer to the communion meal or Lord’s Supper.

And this food is called among us Ευχαριστια, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes the things we teach are true, who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins and for the purpose of regeneration and who is living as Christ has commanded. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these, but in the same way that Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, we likewise have been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. (Justin Martyr, First Apology 66, c. A.D. 150)

You’ll find many more quotes and a great summation of early Christian teaching on the Eucharist at Catholic.com.

Posted in Church, Modern Doctrines, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , | 13 Comments

Entertainment and Training in Overcoming Temptation

Posted on 12/26/2012 by Paul Pavao

"I’m torn between the man I love and the man I am dangerously attracted to."

We’re traveling, so we’re watching TV on occasion in our motel rooms, something we don’t get to do at home. An advertisement for some TV program started with the sentence above.

It got me thinking about the state of morality (or, rather, immorality) in Hollywood.

Addressing the dilemma described in the sentence above is not immoral. It’s mere honesty to address the fact that people get torn between someone they love (spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, parent, sibling, child) and someone they are dangerously attracted to. We face temptations of all sorts, and there’s nothing immoral about basing a story on those temptations.

The problem is that in Hollywood’s (and America’s) current moral state, we don’t know whether the TV show’s protagonist is going to choose the man she loves or the one she’s dangerously attracted to.

It wasn’t that long ago that heroes and heroines of TV shows and movies were shining examples of moral fortitude. When faced with temptation, or when propositioned by someone with looser, or perhaps just weaker, morals, they would simply say no. Part of what made them a hero was their ability to choose what was right before God and good (in the long run) for the people involved over what would bring pleasure on the spot.

Dave Ramsey, the well-known financial adviser, radio talk show host, and author, likes to say, “Maturity is the ability to delay pleasure.”

A good movie or TV show used to inspire us to delay pleasure. Heroes were those who could deny themselves, overcoming fear and all our various versions of selfishness, even sacrificing relationships, to do what was right and good and thus save the day.

Now, though, the whole point of a TV show could be obtaining temporary pleasure, even if such pleasure would destroy lives in the long run.

It’s one thing to be torn between “the man you love and the man you’re dangerously attracted to.” All of us face temptation. The question is, will your storyteller give you a new attitude or new method to overcome temptation, or will your storyteller encourage your baser nature, telling you that the power to think long term is beyond you and that belief in a final Judge of right and wrong is out of style?

Posted in Holiness, Miscellaneous | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Plug for Restless Pilgrim

Posted on 12/21/2012 by Paul Pavao

You may have noticed Restless Pilgrim’s comments on some of my posts. I pop over to his blog now and then and catch up on his posts.

It’s always struck me as funny that he reads my blog at all. We’re nothing alike … well, our blogs aren’t. He’s Roman Catholic. I focus on early church history and end up disagreeing with the Roman Catholics a lot. I write long, wordy posts; it’s not unusual for his to be a mere two paragraphs long.

I have to suppose that we agree on one thing. People ought to think about their lives, and thus their faith, and they ought to live life on purpose (and under the authority of God).

Anyway, I wanted to put in a plug for his blog. (Parents beware; just by chance, his last post is a George Carlin video, which means language is rough.)

What I like about his blog is how he gives me something to think about in real short posts. He gets to the point really well, so it’s easy for me to find time to read the posts.

Restless Pilgrim’s blog is at RestlessPilgrim.net/blog.

Posted in Miscellaneous, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Who Am I? Who Are You?

Posted on 12/21/2012 by Paul Pavao

Today’s post is just a brief exhortation: Don’t forget who you are. In fact, make sure you know who you are!

James 1:18 says, “By his own will he birthed us by the word of truth, so that we might be a sort of firstfruits of his creation.”

We Christians are part of a whole new creation. We are no longer primarily descendants of Adam. Whether Adam descended from Australopithecines or from dirt, all he provided us is the tent in which we, brand new creations and children of God, dwell. We’ll discard that tent some day, the sooner the better.

Until then, we possess a great treasure in an earthly storage bin. We are partakers of the divine nature, recipients of great and precious promises give by Almighty God himself.

“Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called the children of God.”

Never expect the ordinary. God has his eye on you, and you are empowered by his grace to handle every situation. Turn your life over to him and live supernaturally; don’t let the world, the devil, or your brain lie to you and tell you that you are merely ordinary.

“I have heard of you, that the Spirit of God is in you and that light, understanding, and excellent wisdom is in you” (Dan. 5:14).

Posted in Evolution and Creation, Holiness, Miscellaneous | Tagged | 1 Comment

Perspective

Posted on 12/19/2012 by Paul Pavao

Perspective

Today I watched the movie, The Hobbit. It gave me a new perspective on perspective.

Before I watched the related movie, The Lord of the Rings, I read a quote from the director, Peter Jackson. He said that whenever they got to a difficult point in the script, they always found themselves going back to the book to decide what to do. In fact he repeated it: ” … back to the book, back to the book.”

Then I saw the movie. I was a little puzzled by what he meant after I saw part one, as there were some extremely significant changes, such as writing the elven prince Glorfindel out of the movie and replacing his role with Elrond’s daughter (whose name escapes me at the moment, but my son says it’s Arwen).

The second movie was even worse, where Peter Jackson made changes that completely changed the, uh, character of certain characters. Most offensive of all to me was when Faramir refused to let Frodo continue on his journey. In the book, J.R.R. Tolkien made that choice by Faramir a sign of his noble attitude. No better, though, was the change in the decision of the Ents at their council. Peter Jackson made the Ents look stupid, uncaring, and selfish.

I have scoffed and complained about Peter Jackson’s quote numerous times, wondering what in the world he was talking about when he said he was returning to the book.

Until today.

Today, I saw Peter Jackson’s perspective on turning a book into a movie. (None of the following will spoil the movie.)

After seeing The Hobbit, it is obvious that, to Peter Jackson, the book is just an outline, providing the major events that are the skeleton of the story. Every detail is up for grabs, and changing the details for the sake of a “better” movie is simply normal.

That’s not my perspective. If I were making a movie from a book, especially a classic like The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, I would use the book as a script, both for the action and for the dialogue. From my perspective he put together the movies with reckless disregard for the book, and, in the case of The Lord of the Rings, even the intent of the author.

From Peter Jackson’s perspective, however, every time he planned the details of some major event in the movie and chose to act out the detail as described in the book, he was “going back to the book.” Thus, he could have accumulated hundreds of “back to the book” moments while all I saw was him slaughtering one of the greatest works of fiction of all time.

The Application of Perspective in Discussion

It is important in a discussion—that is, if you happen to be fortunate enough to be in a discussion with an open-minded person, for those are few and far between—to be able to see the other person’s perspective. If you cannot see from their viewpoint, you cannot adjust their viewpoint. Instead, you will rave meaninglessly about things that seem utterly irrelevant to the person with whom you are discussing, all the while thinking you are presenting insightful arguments.

To use The Lord of the Rings as an example, I could have long discussions with Peter Jackson about the importance of the decision at the entmoot (the meeting of the Ents, where they were deciding whether or not to attack Isengard). I would argue that because it’s so important, he should get it right.

“Right” to Peter Jackson is not the same as “right” to me, however. To me, getting it right means mimicking the book. To Peter Jackson, getting it right would be maximizing entertainment value without losing the story. The more I raved about “getting it right,” the more I would just lose him as an audience.

I get many emails from people who either cannot or will not see things from my perspective. The result is that they send me long arguments refuting things that I have never said.

One of the worst examples is the quite common misjudgment that because I believe that the scientific evidence for evolution is irrefutable, then I must not believe in a Creator. People like this often write me emails arguing that the universe is clearly designed, and thus requires a Designer. Or they argue that the Scriptures are inspired and should be trusted.

Such people are wasting their time emailing me. I already believe that the universe has a Designer. I already believe that the Scriptures are inspired and should be trusted.

Another example concerns church history and the pope. History is very clear that there was no pope in the second and third centuries. In fact, Rome did not even have a singular bishop to possess papal powers until near the mid-second century. History is so clear on these two subjects that I can even quote Roman Catholic historians who agree with me.

These statements, even though historically accurate, are offensive to Roman Catholics (who rarely, if ever, consider that their arguments for the universal authority of the bishop of Rome are offensive as well). It is a rare week that goes by without at least one letter from a Roman Catholic either insulting me (stupid, possessed, gnostic, insane, heretical, moved by satan, enemy of Christ’s church, etc.) or arguing against my presentation of history.

The problem is, virtually every one of these emails assumes I am a Protestant holding Reformation doctrines and a vicious opponent of the Roman Catholic Church, rather than an amateur historian examining their claims.

Based on that misjudgment, I get everything from relatively sweet letters telling me about all the wonderful charity work the RCC does, to emails listing great Catholic saints, to extended arguments against modern fundamentalist Protestant doctrines

I’m not a vicious opponent of the RCC, and I’m not a fundamentalist Protestant, so such emails are irrelevant and off target.

Admittedly, Roman Catholic charities do wonderful work. In fact, in Memphis, which is not far from where I live, the RCC provides money for Protestant medical ministries—more than the Protestants are able to provide for themselves. Concerning the “saints,” I have the utmost respect and honor for Roman Catholics like Francis of Assissi and Mother Theresa. In fact, I find it incredibly offensive that many fundamentalist Protestants believe that Mother Theresa is going to hell.

Further, I agree that on paper the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is Scriptural (and thus apostolic and traditional), while the Reformation version of sola fide, or salvation by faith, is incorrect and unscriptural. I would even reject sola Scriptura because Scripture repeatedly describes a final authority that is not Scripture.

All of this, however, is irrelevant to the issue of “papal primacy” in the second-century church. Papal primacy in the second century church is a purely academic, historical issue, and it’s not even a difficult one; it’s just a very emotional one.

I suppose that the reason I am writing this is to say that if you’re emotional about an issue, it might be worth putting more effort into understanding how to communicate with the persons you disagree with than into simply venting your anger with pointless arguments because it wasn’t worth your time to consider your opponent’s perspective.

Posted in Evolution and Creation, Miscellaneous, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Holy Distraction

Posted on 12/17/2012 by Paul Pavao

Christians are not ordinary people. As the apostle Peter puts it, we are partakers of the divine nature equipped with everything we need for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3-4). We are sons of God, led by the Spirit of the one true God, who created everything, controls the weather, and raises the dead. We are “his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works which he has prepared in advance for us to do” (Eph. 2:10).

As such, every day we should arise asking ourselves, “What should I do today? Where will I be releasing the immense power stored up in this ‘earthen vessel’?”

We don’t always remember to ask such questions. Too often, we just set about our day as though we were ordinary, or something other than demigods. (I don’t generally use that word, and I don’t recommend it, but I’m trying to put a picture in your head of who you are as someone possessed by the Holy Spirit of the Creator of the universe.)

God always remembers, however. It’s important to him that we make good use of the treasure deposited within us (remember the parable of the talents). As a good Father, he is committed to making his will known to us. I’m a father, and I have certain expectations from my children. Although it’s their duty to try to live up to those expectations, it is my duty to let them know what those expectations are.

One of the ways God lets us know his expectations is by speaking to us as we pray. In prayer, we are focused on our Father, so it is one of the best times to get us to hear what he is saying.

The problem is, many of us do not recognize his voice when it comes. We think prayer is just praise, thanksgiving, and making requests. We don’t think of prayer as conversation. We certainly don’t remember that in a conversation with someone like God, it’s better for him to do most of the talking, rather than us.

God remembers, though, and he talks.

Because we don’t remember, we often mistake the voice of God for a distraction.

“I was trying to pray this morning, but I kept being distracted by thoughts about work.”

Now it’s true that the devil would love to distract us in prayer, and humans have minds that are prone to wandering. Perhaps your thoughts about work really were a distraction, produced by worry or by your own ambition.

But if we’re in prayer, knowing that God is speaking, it makes sense that we should at least examine those thoughts and determine whether God is giving us instructions for our workplace … or maybe he’s giving us something specific to pray for.

Hearing God?

Is the Christian life really like that? We can really be guided by God on an ongoing basis?

I’ve read whole books teaching that God doesn’t speak to Christians except through the Scriptures, or perhaps through circumstances. I cannot conceive how anyone can read the Bible that way.

When the Holy Spirit first came to the church, Peter announced, by quoting Joel, that the Spirit would make old men dream dreams, young men see visions, and our sons and daughters would prophesy (Acts 2). Paul tells us that the children of God are those who are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:14). Matthew tells us that we live by every word that “proceeds,” present tense, from the mouth of God, not just by words that proceeded from his mouth two or three thousand years ago (4:4). Paul tells us again that in our gatherings, every one of us can prophesy (1 Cor. 14:31).

I don’t know how those Scriptures can be interpreted by those who believe in a silent God.

One of the most outstanding verses in the apostles’ writings is 1 John 2:26-27. It reads:

I have written these things because of those who are trying to seduce you. The anointing that you have received from him abides in you, and you don’t need any man to teach you. That anointing teaches you everything, and it is true and not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in him.

All the “yous” in those verses are plural. This is not a promise for rogue individuals. It’s a promise to the church, gathered together and exhorting each other. (In fact, Eph. 4:13-16 says the same thing with some details thrown in about the need to be speaking to one another.)

Notice what John is telling us. It’s not only important, it’s amazing! He’s telling the church, “You don’t need me to answer all your questions. The anointing of God will answer them for you. Not only that, but the answers you get will be true and trustworthy.”

And this is concerning false teachers (“those who are trying to seduce you”). The answer is not in depth Bible study, though that’s a good thing. The answer is the children of God speaking the truth to one another in love until they know by the anointing of God what is true (Cf. Eph. 4:13-16).

That is an amazing promise, and it requires us to be able to hear God and then let him speak through us.

Maybe you see something different in the Scriptures, but I cannot. It seems obvious to me that prophets, which we all can be according to 1 Cor. 14:31, have to hear God. Agabus, for example, who is twice mentioned in Acts, gave prophecies that he could not have read about anywhere. He predicted a famine and the arrest of Paul. That required hearing God.

On the trip to Rome after he was arrested, the ship that was transporting Paul was involved in a shipwreck. God told Paul that he would spare the ship and all the passengers. That can only happen if God actually spoke to Paul.

Are we to live differently than Paul, or should we follow him as an example?

I believe we should follow him as an example, especially since the Scripture commands us to do so: “Imitate me, as I imitate Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1).

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

How We Got Our New Testament

Posted on 12/01/2012 by Paul Pavao

I have written on this subject before, but this time I want to approach it backwards. Rather than explain and defend my viewpoint, which is that the 27 books which make up our “New Testament” were chosen for one reason and one reason only: the churches believed they were written by an apostle or apostolic companion.

The backwards approach I’m talking about is that I want to refute the common modern belief that there were several factors used to determine whether a booklet or letter should be included in the “canon” (the books accepted as Scripture).

This came up because I was reading an introduction to the New Testament, and the author, Dr. Henry Clarence Thiessen, discusses the canon of the “New Testament,” and though he defends the standard model, his defense is one of the best proofs I’ve run across that the standard model is incorrect.

Two Comments

First, I looked up Dr. Thiessen on the internet. He appears to have been a diligent student of Scripture and a disciple of Jesus Christ. I mean him no disrespect. Even a good disciple can be wrong, especially if he’s been trained to accept tradition over proper reasoning. (Such training does not happen on purpose, but it does happen because of example in many denominations.)

Second, the reason that I put “New Testament” in parentheses is because the 27 books that comprise our “New Testament” are not the new covenant, and they should not be called that. God has made a new covenant with us, and it is a spiritual covenant, not written on paper. Our 27 books are inspired writings that came from apostles, or their companions, who were under the new covenant. They are not the covenant itself.

I prefer to call those 27 books “the apostles’ writings.”

Dr. Thiessen writes:

There were four things which aided in the determination of which books should be accepted as canonical.

The quotes I am discussing are on page 10 and 11 of Introduction to the New Testament. I included an Amazon link to the right so you know which book it is, but don’t buy the book there. Look at the price! Crazy! I got mine at McKay’s—an excellent, huge used bookstore—for about $8.

The four things he says helped the church determine which writings belonged in the canon were:

  1. Was the book written by an apostle?
  2. Was the content of a given book of such a spiritual character as to entitle it to this rank?
  3. Was the book universally received in the church?
  4. Does the book give evidence of being divinely inspired?

My position, as I’ve stated, is that the church determined whether a book was Scripture based solely on the first question.

Question #2 could be used to help determine whether a book was really written by an apostle or whether it was a fraud. Question #3 was important, but each church received a book based on whether it was written by an apostle, so this is really the same as #1. Question #4 is an anachronism. No early Christian would have been able even to ask that question.

Let’s examine each of these additional qualifications for being ranked as Scripture with help from Dr. Thiessen himself.

Content

Was the content of a given book of such a spiritual character as to entitle it to this rank?

Dr. Thiessen gives no evidence or argument that this question was used to determine whether a book belonged in the canon. He simply states that it is so.

For the question of apostolicity (whether it was written or approved by an apostle), he gives both evidence and examples. Mark, Luke, Acts, and Hebrews are given as books for which the question of apostolicity was important.

That’s true. Mark was the companion of Peter in Rome, and Luke was Paul’s companion. Thus Mark, Luke, and Acts carried the authority of Peter and Paul and were accepted as inspired.

There were a lot of questions about the authorship of Hebrews, but those who treated it as Scripture believed it to have been written by either Barnabas or Paul.

Accepted universally by the church

Whether a book was accepted by churches was definitely important. Even as late as A.D. 400, Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine) taught students of Scripture “to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority” (On Christian Doctrine II:8:12).

However, why did churches accept books as Scripture?

Because they were written by apostles.

Dr. Thiessen writes:

It is clear that no one regarded [the seven general epistles] as written by James, Peter, John, and Jude and yet rejected them.

In other words, the letters of these four men were not accepted as Scripture by all churches, but only by some. However, Dr. Thiessen points out here that everyone who believed they were written by James, Peter, John, and Jude accepted them as Scripture.

Here, right in Dr. Thiessen’s text, is one of the strongest evidences there could be that the only criteria for accepting a new covenant writing as Scripture was whether it was written by an apostle or apostolic companion.

Does the Book Give Evidence of Being Divinely Inspired?

How does a book give evidence of being divinely inspired? Does it emanate a feeling? Does it say something none of us could know?

It’s hard to present an argument against this line of thinking because it just did not exist in early Christianity. You can probably imagine that it is hard to find a quote that says, “We don’t have that kind of thinking in this day and age; that won’t be invented until centuries later.”

From long experience of reading the writings of the early church for over 20 years (I have read everything written by the church before A.D. 220 at least twice, and much of it many more times than that), I can tell you that no one thought along the lines of writings that just felt “anointed” or “inspired.”

Some Early Christian Quotes on What Really Mattered: Apostolic Authority

The early Christians were not looking for an “ooh and ahh” feeling of divine inspiration. They were submitted to apostolic authority.

Cyprian writes: “From where is [his] tradition? Does it descend from the authority of the Lord and the Gospel or does it come from the commands and letters of the apostles? For God witnesses and admonishes that those things which are written must be done” (Letter to Pompeius, c. A.D. 250).

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

Irenaeus, the great second century overseer and missionary in Lyon, Gaul (modern Trier, Germany), writes: “The church … has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith” (Against Heresies I:10:1). He adds, “We have learned from no one else the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they proclaimed at one time in public, then, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith” (ibid. III:1:1, emphasis mine).

I think these few quotes serve as examples of how the early Christians saw inspiration. Inspiration was in the apostles. There are at least dozens, perhaps hundreds of quotes like this, because to the early churches, it was the apostles that were the authority of God. They delivered the Gospel to the churches, and the job of the churches was to deliver it unchanged to the next generation.

Some Scriptures on the Authority of the Apostles

Contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)

How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which was spoken to us by the Lord at first, then confirmed to us by those that heard him. God also testified to them, both with signs and wonders and with various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his will. (Heb. 2:3-4)

If anyone considers himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you are the commandments of Christ. (1 Cor. 14:37)

Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)

Posted in Bible, History, Modern Doctrines | 2 Comments

The Church

Posted on 09/28/2012 by Paul Pavao

I read the following in a daily devotion that I get from www.austin-sparks.net.

The higher position of “Ephesians” is this – that now, being quickened and raised together with Christ and seated in the heavenlies is a matter of relatedness to other believers, and in that relatedness, you are going to find your fullness. You are never going to find spiritual enlargement just as an isolated, separate individual, but in relation with other believers. (T. Austin Sparks, A Way of Growth)

Ephesians states very clearly that the way to grow into the fullness of Christ’s stature is together. We grow as we speak the truth in love to one another, and we grow as "every part does its share" (4:16).

This is a teaching that most people do not know about. Who teaches that we cannot grow without one another?

The answer is almost no one. We need to share it because it’s taught not just in Ephesians 4, but rather thoroughly in 1 Corinthians 12 as well.

Posted in Church, Unity | Tagged , | Leave a comment