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

Are We Bible Believers?

Posted on 09/27/2012 by Paul Pavao

U.S. Christians make a lot of claims about being "Bible believers," but mostly they are Bible praisers. They honor and say wonderful things about the Bible, but they really don’t pay much attention to what it says unless it agrees with what they’ve been told by whatever favorite denomination or teacher they have.

Example 1: Limited Atonement

I was explaining radical (5-point) Calvinism to my son earlier in the week. Calvinism is marked by five central beliefs, called "the five points of Calvinism," which spell out TULIP. The five points are:

  • Total Depravity
  • Unconditional Election
  • Limited Atonement
  • Irresistible Grace
  • Perseverance of the Saints

I cover Calvinism on my Christian history site, so I won’t address all those points here. I just want to use "Limited Atonement" as an example of "Bible believers" who, despite the wonderful things they say about the authority of the Bible and its divine inspiration, are unmoved by what the Bible actually says.

Five-point Calvinism is not a rare belief. It is the official belief of Reformed Churches (250,000 US members), some Presbyterian churches, some Baptist churches, and others scattered throughout Protestant denominations. John Piper, a very popular teacher endorsed by the Harrises (leaders of The Rebelution); John MacArthur, well-known author, radio host, and head of Grace to You ministries; Mark Driscoll, pastor of "emergent" Mars Hill Church; plus authors and historical figures like Arthur Pink, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield, and R.C. Sproul are or were noted 5-point Calvinists.

This means that all of them have defended the doctrine of limited atonement, which teaches that Jesus only died for Christians (the elect), rather than for the whole world.

Here’s a couple things the Bible says about that idea:

If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the atonement for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 Jn. 2:1-2)

Is there actually anything else to talk about once we read a passage like that? Is it really possible even to suggest that John would have accepted the idea of limited atonement when he said that Jesus is the atonement for the sins of the whole world and not just ours?

We both labor and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (1 Tim. 4:10)

Do I even need to comment on what that says?

God is not slow as some men reckon slowness, but he is patient with us, not willing that anyone should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9)

Calvinists argue that "all" and "all men" and "the whole world" are references to believers only because they are the only people that God "knows." The rest God does not know, so they are not part of "all men" or "the whole world."

I can’t even argue with that except to say that I’d be embarrassed to make such an argument out loud.

I’m not sure what to say about great men like George Whitefield and Charles Spurgeon, that they could be deceived by such nonsense. These were not men who ignored the Scripture when it came to obeying God, unlike most U.S. Christians, who make excuses why we should not obey the "extreme" things Jesus taught.

I am sure, however, that "limited atonement" is an excellent example of strict believers in the authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of Scriptures simply ignoring what it says. Their tradition is far more important to them than what Scripture says.

Example 2 and 3: Works and One God

I’ll give a second and third example. Try quoting either one of these verses in a strict "Bible-believing" church and see if you can avoid being labeled a heretic:

For us there is but one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 8:6)

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

Are those isolated verses? Contradicted by "the historic Christian faith"?

No. Try these on to match those two verses:

We believe in one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed)

God … will repay everyone according to their deeds; to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality by patiently continuing to do good he will repay eternal life. (Rom. 2:5-7)

But be careful. Don’t quote those things publicly. Most "Bible believers" are not Bible believers but tradition believers, and you will be regarded a heretic.

You can see well-documented, primary source discussions of the early church’s universal position on the topics of works and the Trinity at my Christian history site. You can get to either from the doctrine page.

Posted in Bible, History, Modern Doctrines, Unity | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Five-fold Ministry

Posted on 09/18/2012 by Paul Pavao

I don’t really like the terminology: "Five-fold ministry." However, I can see why it’s used, since five particular gifts are mentioned in Ephesians 4:11-12 as being tasked with the job of perfecting the saints for the work of ministry and the building of the body of Christ.

Five-fold or Four-fold?

As a side note, it is possible that this should be "four-fold" ministry. Each of the gifts listed is preceded by "some to be" (KJV) or "some as" (NASB) except the last one, teachers. There we read " … and some as shepherds and teachers." Thus, some scholars believe that Paul meant to say that this "some" are meant to be both shepherds and teachers, not two different groups of people.

Literally, I would agree with those scholars, but practically, I think that interpretation makes a very big false assumption. It is common today to assume that the Bible has a list of gifts which God has categorized, each distinct from the other. I don’t believe that is true. God gives grace to people, and in Ephesians 4 he is giving people, gifted by grace, to the church. Neither God’s grace nor God’s people can always be separated into distinct categories. Such boxes break and spill over into others all the time in real life.

Thus, on a practical basis, there will be some who are shepherds and teachers, and there will be some who are great shepherds, but whose teaching is at best adequate, and vice versa.

Pastor or Shepherd?

Sorry, one more side note:

The KJV uses "pastors" in Ephesians 4:11, which is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament of the KJV. The word Paul wrote is just the Greek word for shepherds. "Pastor" is a nice religious word, but Paul wasn’t using a religious word. He just said "shepherd," so that’s what I say, too.

That’s important because the use of "pastor" disguises apostolic teaching on church leadership. Paul says it is the job of the elders to shepherd the church of God (Acts 17:28), and Peter agrees with him. Of course, it’s difficult to tell in the KJV that Peter agrees with him because the KJV has Peter telling the elders to "feed" the church of God rather than shepherd them. The Greek word Peter uses is poimanate, the verb form (2nd person plural, imperative mood, aorist tense, active voice) of shepherd, which as a noun is poimen.

Today, Protestant churches commonly have a pastor and a board of elders, if they have elders at all. Roman Catholic churches have simply changed the word elder to priest, but their "presbyters" are at least still functioning as the shepherds of their churches. (Well, they’re supposed to be, but you’re as unlikely to find that happening in the 21st century in Roman Catholic churches as you are to find shepherding happening in Protestant churches. But we’ll cover that more as we go on.)

The First Three Ministries

Enough said about shepherds and teachers. Those aren’t really mysteries to us today. We understand both concepts.

I think we’ll understand them better, however, once we learn to understand the first three ministries, which have NOT disappeared. I know the idea of modern apostles and prophets is controversial, but that’s only because so many churches are either ignorant of what those offices are or are so carnal that spiritual gifts among them are rare or unknown.

There is no ground whatsoever for arguing that apostles and prophets should not exist today.

Apostles

The original twelve apostles can never be duplicated. Consider these verses:

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

It was necessary for me to write to you and to exhort you that you should earnestly fight for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)

As Clement of Rome put it just 30 years or so after those verses, "The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God." (1 Clement 42, c. A.D. 96). Tertullian adds, "From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed" (Prescription Against Heretics 21, c. A.D. 210).

The twelve apostles (and Paul) are the ones who "confirmed to us" the great salvation preached by Jesus Christ. The rest of us are the "us" of Hebrews 2:3 who should be earnestly battling for the faith which was delivered to us, and which did not come from us but from Jesus Christ and through the original apostles.

But Scripture describes many more apostles than the twelve. We can begin with Paul, as a thirteenth apostle, but it doesn’t end there. Acts 14:14 says that Barnabas was an apostle, too.

1 Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6 suggest not only that Silas and Timothy were apostles, too, but that anyone who traveled with Paul preaching the Gospel was an apostle.

There were those who were the "they," the original apostles who brought the Gospel to the earth, witnessing to the resurrection of our Lord, which proved him to be the Son of God, Lord, and Messiah. But there were also later apostles, who were not eyewitnesses of the resurrection, but who joined them in the work of raising up churches.

If you are going to raise up a church, you need to have two essential gifts. You have to have the gift of evangelism, and you have to be able to shepherd as well. You have to be an evangelist, or you will have no one to form into a church. You have to be able to shepherd, or you will fail at raising up the church. Instead, the sheep will scatter and become useless to God, mere fodder for the wolves of this world.

Sure enough, that is the picture that we see painted in Scripture concerning apostles like Paul and Timothy … and Titus.

Before I show you the Scriptures that describe the apostolic work of Paul, Timothy, and Titus, let me dispel another modern myth, very deep-rooted, but based on nothing at all.

Were Timothy and Titus Pastors?

The two letters to Timothy and the one to Titus are known as "the pastoral epistles" because of the assumption that Timothy and Titus were pastors.

This is a terrible assumption, based on exactly the error I described above when I used shepherds rather than pastors to describe one of the gifts in Ephesians 4:11. In the apostles’ writings, elders are the ones who do the shepherding (and they are exactly the same people who are called "bishops"). Timothy and Titus are told to appoint elders, not to be elders. And once they appoint the elders, Paul asks them to leave the churches they are temporarily watching over (2 Tim. 4:21; Tit. 3:12-13).

Apostles As Shepherds

Paul often got no chance to be a shepherd. Sometimes that was just because he was traveling, but other times it was because he was run out of town by the enemies of God.

This did not stop him from caring for the churches.

In Acts 14:21-23 we see him returning with Barnabas "confirming the souls of the disciples" and appointing elders in every church.

In Acts 20, we see Paul calling for elders from Ephesus whom he has already appointed, and he describes his activities when he was first with the church at Ephesus:

Therefore, watch, and remember that for the space of three years I did not stop warning you night and day with tears. And now, brothers, I commend you to God and to the Word of his grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among those who are sanctified. (Acts 20:31-32)

This is Paul being a shepherd, building up the church until he could turn it over to those elders God had raised up who would take over the job of shepherding.

With the Thessalonians, he shepherded them in this way:

We were gentle with you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her children. Longing for you affectionately, we were willing to impart to you not just the Gospel of God but even our own lives. … You know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you like a father does his children so that you would walk worthy of God, who has called you into his glory and kingdom. (1 Thess. 2:7-8, 11-12)

But Paul didn’t always have time to always stay with his churches. The letters to Timothy and Titus are among the latest of Paul’s life, and in them he refers to himself as "Paul the aged."

He had developed a team, an apostolic team, all of whom had the right to be called apostles, and rather than stick around to do the exhausting work of shepherding a new church, he left Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete to do it for him.

But it wasn’t a lifetime work for them, either. They were to raise up elders to take their place, then return to Paul. That is why 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are the only places in the apostolic writings that give the qualifications of an elder (or bishop, which is exactly the same thing to Paul).

Apostles As Evangelists

I mentioned that apostles needed to be evangelists as well.

The word "evangelist" is only used twice in Paul’s letters. One is in Ephesians 4:11, and the other is 2 Tim. 4:5, where Paul tells Timothy to do the work of an evangelist.

Notice that he does not tell Timothy that he is an evangelist; he tells him to do the work of an evangelist. Apostles need to do that. New growth helps fuel the church.

This are the only places that the word "evangelist" is used in Paul’s letters, but he uses another word, translated "preacher," which means exactly the same thing. (The proof of that from Scripture will have to wait for a different post.)

Paul refers to himself as a "preacher" (kerux) in both 1 Tim. 2:7 and 2 Tim. 1:11. Evangelism and shepherding both must be done by apostles.

Evangelists Today

This post is so long already, and it covers what I really wanted to cover, so I’m only going to touch on this subject.

Evangelists are listed as separate from pastors and teachers or pastor/teachers (depending on which is the right translation of Paul’s Greek words).

Today, however, we’re very confused about the work of an evangelist. We have evangelists traveling around preaching in our churches. Evangelists need to preach outside the churches! Shepherds, who actually should be called elders and do the work of shepherding, should be doing the majority of the teaching inside the churches.

We’re all mixed up. Our pastors (shepherds) are standing up preaching evangelistic sermons to what we call the church. Then we bring in evangelists, which unlike Scripture does not mean someone who preaches the Gospel to the lost but instead means someone who travels rather than staying in one place, to whip the church into a zealous frenzy so that they start living like Christians.

Those roles should be reversed. (It may sound like I used "zealous frenzy" as a negative term, but I don’t mean it that way. I’m all for us being in a zealous frenzy. I’d much rather God be settling us down than having to light a fire under us or threaten us all the time.)

Prophets today

Just one note here. Read about what the prophet Agabus did for the church in the Book of Acts (11:28ff; 21:10ff) and think about whether the writings of the apostles have replaced the role he filled. We still need prophets like him today.

Posted in Bible, Church, Gospel, History, Leadership, missions, Modern Doctrines, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments