What’s the Best Denomination?

Posted on 12/27/2011 by Paul Pavao

I got a question by email today that I think fits perfectly with what I’ve been discussing on this blog. The question reads like this:

Another question that I have had is, after studying early church history what denomination or church today do you think comes closest to what early Christians believed?

Here was my answer:

I think the existence of a denomination completely undoes what the early Christians believed, so I can’t pick a best one.

The church has several purposes. It is the gathering of those Jesus loves, who will eventually become his bride. It is the place where Jesus reigns on the earth, and thus it demonstrates to the world what the eternal kingdom of God will be like. That is why our love for one another and our unity are said to be the way the world will know that both we and Jesus himself are of God (Jn. 13:34-35; 17:20-23).

The church is also the place where we are able to grow together into Jesus’ image and learn the righteousness of God. Most Christians don’t understand the danger of having our own righteousness and how able we are to be deceived in such matters (Heb. 3:13). Our righteousness can easily turn into the Pharisees’ righteousness, and the Pharisees infuriated Jesus (and thus his Father as well). We don’t want to be like them, trying to be holy but infuriating God in the process!

Thus, I don’t care whether a worship service is liturgical, loud, quiet, or in what order it is. I look at fruit, like Jesus said to do (Matt. 7:15 or around there). Where are Christians loving one another, building one another up, and admonishing one another? There, the truth of God will descend, and if those Christians will continue together, they will grow together.

I join myself to those Christians. I don’t join myself to their meeting. I join myself to them. I become their friend, and I spend as much time as possible with them. Chances are, I will meet with them, too, no matter how good or bad their meetings are.

1900 years ago, it would have been much easier. I could also have had a meeting where the Lord’s Supper was properly understood and happened weekly. I could have found everything I describe above and had such a meeting. Today, it’s not so easy.

In the end, though, the most important thing is the fruit I describe above, and it is hard to say where you will find that. When I go to a new town, which I have done a lot, I ask God to guide me to people that I can have that kind of fellowship with.

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

Early Christian Meetings

Posted on 12/24/2011 by Paul Pavao

I was asked about early Christian meetings in an email, and I thought that more of you would be interested in what the meetings of the early church were like.

Here’s where to find more on the early church meetings. The passages from Justin and Tertullian are given in full at the bottom of this post.

The earliest description of an early Christian meeting (or church service) is in Justin’s First Apology, ch. 67.

Tertullian describes an Agape (a love feast) and he calls it by that name (Agape). That’s in his Apology, ch. 39. Justin’s is from c. A.D. 150, and Tertullian’s is from c. A.D. 210.

If you ever have to look anything like these up yourself, you can find these and most other pre-Nicene writings at http://www.ccel.org/fathers.

There’s more liturgical descriptions of worship and church practices in Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition (difficult to find and may need to be purchased) and the Apostolic Constitutions. Hippolytus wrote in the early third century, and the Apostolic Constitutions is a composite document, some of which is from the late third century, and the rest later.

That’s about it, which I suppose should stand out to us. The early churches did not emphasize the weekly meeting, though they surely considered it important. Their writings emphasize daily life, their commitment and care for one another, their honesty, their bravery in the face of adversity, etc. When they speak of theology, they emphasize that there is one God, that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, and that he is a Lord and Teacher worth following. The weekly meeting is not their emphasis at all. They are not looking for ways to improve it, and they don’t spend much time even discussing it. It’s primarily an opportunity to hear the Scriptures with some explanation, for none of them would have owned Bibles, and to eat the fellowship meal together.

Justin’s c. A.D. 150 Description of an Early Church Meeting

nd on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

Tertullian’s c. A.D. 210 Description of a Love Feast

Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agape?, i.e., affection. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the needy; not as it is with you, do parasites aspire to the glory of satisfying their licentious propensities, selling themselves for a belly-feast to all disgraceful treatment,—but as it is with God himself, a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly. If the object of our feast be good, in the light of that consider its further regulations. As it is an act of religious service, it permits no vileness or immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual ablution, and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing,—a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so with prayer it is closed. We go from it, not like troops of mischief-doers, nor bands of vagabonds, nor to break out into licentious acts, but to have as much care of our modesty and chastity as if we had been at a school of virtue rather than a banquet.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

There’s a Goal! Tearing Down Is for Building Up!

Posted on 12/24/2011 by Paul Pavao

I’m realizing from a discussion I’m having with Restless Pilgrim that to many people I seem like I’m against a lot of things rather than for one thing.

Here’s my goal: That Christians would walk together, full of mercy to one another, but also full of zeal for obedience to Jesus Christ; that we would love one another and take care of one another’s needs, and that we would meddle in one another’s lives, admonishing and comforting each other as needed in order to provoke each other to love and good works (Heb. 3:13; 10:24).

There’s something standing in the way. It’s a system that promotes attending services rather than living as family to one another and which treats the pointing out and correcting of real problems as judgment that Jesus forbids.

A former pastor and current Sunday school teacher admitted to me recently that his church never has and never will obey 1 Corinthians 5:

I have written to you not to keep company with anyone who is called a brother who is a fornicator, greedy, an idolator, verbally abusive, a drunkard, or a swinder—no, don’t even eat with such a person. … Put out from among yourselves that wicked person. (1 Cor. 5:11, 13b

There are very few congregations, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, that are even allowed to find out if a person is a fornicator, greedy, or verbally abusive. Yes, if one of the minority deeply committed Christians confesses such sin, we will provide help. Those with damaged marriages, who struggle with pornography or substance abuse, or who have some other problem that Christians tend to seek professional counsel—or non-professional counsel in a counseling environment (weekly meetings with a person that was a stranger before the counseling)—then we deal with it.

But what we do today is not church life Biblically. Paul didn’t write 1 Corinthians 5 because he had a vendetta against greedy swindlers. I’m not writing this blog because I have a vendetta against denominations.

Paul was building the church, and accommodating the wicked inside the church was in the way. I’m trying to proclaim the church, and our organizational practices are in the way of obedience to that extremely central Biblical teaching!

There’s two problems with leaving the sexually immoral and verbally abusive (if they’re unrepentant) in the church.

  1. They’re not going to heaven. Paul says so in the next chapter. Treating them like Christians is lying to them and stealing their opportunity to repent and be saved (cf. Jam. 5:19-20).
  2. There is incredible power in the fellowship of the saints. That is the church. When the saints are in fellowship with the sons of the devil, even if they’re sweet children of the devil (Eph. 2:1-3), then they’re not in fellowship with each other, the church doesn’t exist, and the power of the church vanishes.

Jesus gave himself for the church! (Eph. 5:25-27; Tit. 2:13-14). He wants his own special people, zealous for good works. Those people will be led by the Spirit of God (1 Jn. 2:27), protected from deception (Eph. 4:13), and will grow together into everything that Jesus is himself (Eph. 4:14-16).

In the first couple centuries of the church, the devil failed to rip Christians apart by attacking them. But then he switched tactics. Rather than try to terrify these bold Christians into fleeing into the world, he sent the world into the church. As the church forgot 1 Cor. 5 and admitted almost everyone into their fellowship, Christians were crowded apart, and the power and benefit of the church disappeared.

The devil couldn’t pull Christians apart, but he was able to crowd them apart.

He had to. When they were near each other, they were exhorting each other to higher and higher levels of power and holiness, and they were beginning to convert many and influence everyone.

We have come to believe a lie today. We believe that we can listen to the Gospel, read the Bible, pray, and go off to live a Christian life.

That’s not Biblical.

Christians need one another. We need daily exhortation, says the writer of Hebrews (3:13).

Not only that, but when we listen to the Gospel, read the Bible, pray, and go off to live a Christian life, then our invisible, deceptive sins go undealt with. We wind up with our own righteousness, but we miss God’s righteousness, which goes deep down inside and deals with the places even we don’t know about, but which others—if they’re spiritual others—see.

One final note. Yes, there are superstars who do great in the current system.

Most people, though, are not offered the help that was offered in the first century. They have Christ the head, but they don’t really have Christ the body, the family that takes them in, ends their loneliness, and grows with them into the fullness of Christ. And we cannot say that we don’t need the body. Paul was pretty vehement about that (1 Cor. 12).

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

The Local Church and the Magisterium

Posted on 12/23/2011 by Paul Pavao

Yesterday, Restless Pilgrim suggested (correctly) that my answer left "intimate fellowships" as deciding the correct interpretation of Scripture. I wanted to elevate my response from a comment to a post.

Note that the purpose of the Scriptures is to equip us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17), not to resolve disputes over doubtful doctrines (1 Tim. 1:4ff). The Holy Spirit will not feed our "sick obsessions" (1 Tim. 6:3ff).

Intimate Fellowships and a "Living Authority" to Resolve Scriptural Disputes

If that intimate fellowship is the church, then the Scriptures tell us that "The Anointing will teach you all things, and it is true, and not a lie" (1 Jn. 2:27).

Other authorities have failed us. They have not produced the fruit Jesus spoke of. The promise of the Scriptures, however, is that disciples together, joined in Jesus’ name, will be led into what is true. They will speak the truth in love to one another, and they will be delivered from deceivers and from being tossed around on the waves of doctrine (Eph. 4:11-16).

Eph. 4:11-16 and 1 Jn. 2:27 settle the question of what church it is that is the pillar and authority of the truth (the "magisterium"). It’s the local church, as long as they are following Christ rather than just standing on tradition.

Rev. 2-3 is another great section showing us this. Jesus took responsibility for each of these local churches, speaking to them individually through John the elder.

So, yes, I’m saying that intimate fellowships—of disciples following Christ, committed to being the church—will be led into proper interpretations of Scripture by following Christ. The Holy Spirit resolves questions about what to do, which is the purpose of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17); he will rarely resolve doctrinal disputes unless they have practical application or have some sort of important application to unity.

Posted in Bible, Church | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

The Magisterium and the Protestant Reformation, Part 3

Posted on 12/22/2011 by Paul Pavao

More responses to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article, Teaching Authority and Living Magisterium.

Definition of "magisterium" from yesterday’s post:

The magisterium is the self-assigned and self-acknowledged “teaching authority” of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s a reference to whatever authority gets to decide what is true teaching. For Protestants, then, the magisterium is the Bible, though it’s not a very successful teaching authority because Protestants feel free to interpret it any way they want, even if the interpretations are ridiculous and embarrassing. For Roman Catholics, taken to its logical conclusion, the magisterium is the pope or a dogmatic council.

Today’s post will focus almost exclusively on some points on which I believe the Catholic Encyclopedia article is correct.

The Oral Teachings of the Apostles

And as He preached Himself so He sent His Apostles to preach; He did not commission them to write but to teach, and it was by oral teaching and preaching that they instructed the nations and brought them to the Faith. If some of them wrote and did so under Divine inspiration it is manifest that this was as it were incidentally. They did not write for the sake of writing, but to supplement their oral teaching when they could not go themselves to recall or explain it, to solve practical questions, etc. St. Paul, who of all the Apostles wrote the most, did not dream of writing everything nor of replacing his oral teaching by his writings.

I’m not sure how to add to this. You either believe what they say here or you don’t. Personally, I think this is undeniable, quite obviously true.

Paul wrote but 13 letters to seven churches. A lot of those letters didn’t make it to other churches, though some did. Were those letters really Paul’s entire Gospel and all he had to teach the churches? If so, why didn’t he leave writings behind for the church in Ephesus and the churches in Crete rather than leaving Timothy and Titus to train and instruct elders there?

The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit those things to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2)

Doesn’t that seem like Paul meant to leave oral teachings, committed to a few leading men chosen by Timothy, rather than leaving writings?

It’s not just the church in Ephesus, where he left Timothy, for whom he left oral teachings:

Therefore, brothers, stand fast and hold onto the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)

That seems to speak for itself. Take a look at Paul’s pleading with the elders in Ephesus, with whom he would never speak again, and see if you don’t agree that he’s leaving them oral teachings to pass on to the church while they take care of the church.

Interestingly enough, he’s doing that despite the fact that he knows that some of them are going to be corrupt.

The Oral Teachings of Roman Catholicism

Back to the Roman Catholic issue for a second. My complaint about the Roman Catholic Church is not that they claim that there is oral teaching handed down by the apostles. My problem with the RCC is that they have corrupted these oral teachings into an unscriptural mess that has produced corruption, tyranny, and a vast host of nominal, unconverted Christians.

The Protestants left Roman Catholicism because of this, but since they inherited the idea that the church could be a hierarchical organization from their RC predecessors, they have the same problem with a vast host of nominal, unconverted Christians, as well as the problems that result from that problem.

We need to find the oral teachings of the apostles from a reliable source. You cannot find any oral teachings of the apostles reliably from the RCC.

Finally, the same texts which show us Christ instituting His Church and the Apostles founding Churches and spreading Christ’s doctrine throughout the world show us at the same time the Church instituted as a teaching authority; the Apostles claimed for themselves this authority, sending others as they had been sent by Christ and as Christ had been sent by God, always with power to teach and to impose doctrine as well as to govern the Church and to baptize.

Excuse me? Teach and "impose" doctrine?

That’s exactly the problem. The RCC gives lip service to the fact that all tradition must have an apostolic source (see my Dec. 20 post), but it’s nothing but lip service.

A Reliable Source: The Real Church

The apostles imposed doctrine. The elders were to preserve it, and in a church that is a family made up of Christians—rather than an organization composed primarily of weekly visitors—there is no need to "impose" doctrine. All the members love the doctrine of the apostles and help preserve it.

The loss of that church is why the RCC also lost the oral teaching of the apostles.

Whoever believed them would be saved; whoever refused to believe them would be condemned. It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth.

This is true, but the living church is not the RCC. That is an organization that can never be the church nor serve as a fit vessel to hold the pure wine of Christ’s teaching, which was preserved first by the apostles and then afterward by the family of God and its elders.

God has given a promise to the family of God that it can be the pillar and unshakable ground of the truth. John explains how that happens in 1 John 2:27. The Anointing will lead the church—not individuals; all the yous in 1 Jn. 2:27 are plural—into all truth, and that Anointing will be reliable.

That Anointing will lead them to understand the Scriptures—which are the writings of the apostles—correctly, and that Anointing will lead them to understand the writings of the early churches—which bear witness to the oral teachings of the apostles.

But understand, the purpose of the Scriptures is not to resolve doctrinal disputes on unimportant matters. The purpose of the Scriptures is for the correction of our behavior so that we may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim. 1:5-7; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Those who don’t know this swerve aside, says the KJV, into "vain jangling."

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

The Magisterium and the Protestant Reformation, Part 2

Posted on 12/21/2011 by Paul Pavao

More responses to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article, Teaching Authority and Living Magisterium.

Definition of "magisterium" from yesterday’s post:

The magisterium is the self-assigned and self-acknowledged “teaching authority” of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s a reference to whatever authority gets to decide what is true teaching. For Protestants, then, the magisterium is the Bible, though it’s not a very successful teaching authority because Protestants feel free to interpret it any way they want, even if the interpretations are ridiculous and embarrassing. For Roman Catholics, taken to its logical conclusion, the magisterium is the pope or a dogmatic council.

A good portion of that article is an attack on the Protestant’s rejection of the Roman Catholic magisterium. Some of it is good; some bad. It’s the arguments against the Protestant position of Sola Scriptura that I think we need to pay attention to and consider. History establishes that returning to Roman Catholicism is worse than the present situation, but can we not improve on the present situation?

In a similar way they show that they cannot dispense with a teaching authority, a Divinely authorized living magistracy for the solution of controversies arising among themselves and of which the Bible itself was often the occasion. Indeed experience proved that each man found in the Bible his own ideas … The exercise of free inquiry with regard to Biblical texts led to endless disputes, to doctrinal anarchy, and eventually to the denial of all dogma.

We can’t deny that each man interpreting the Bible, the Protestant "magisterium," for himself has led to endless disputes and to doctrinal anarchy.

Protestants have denied all dogma, however. They have simply extended the right to dictate dogma to thousands of competing denominations.

Hence the necessity of a competent authority to solve controversies and interpret the Bible.

The Protestants have either given this authority to their denominations, to some chosen teacher, or to themselves.

The question is, what’s the alternative? As we saw in yesterday’s post, and is amply explained by John Calvin in his letter to Cardinal Sadolet, Protestants found it impossible to leave that authority in the hands of the unspeakably corrupt 16th century Roman Catholic Church. Anything was better than that, including "endless disputes" and "doctrinal anarchy."

[The Roman Catholic] position was amply justified when the Protestants began compromising themselves with the civil power, rejecting the doctrinal authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium only to fall under that of princes.

Wow. If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black. This doesn’t even have much to do with today’s post, but it was so hypocritical as to be shocking. I don’t even know how to respond! I had to include it while I was quoting.

Moreover it was enough to look at the Bible, to read it without prejudice to see that the economy of the Christian preaching was above all one of oral teaching. Christ preached, He did not write. In His preaching He appealed to the Bible, but He was not satisfied with the mere reading of it, He explained and interpreted it, He made use of it in His teaching, but He did not substitute it for His teaching. There is the example of the mysterious traveller who explained to the disciples of Emmaus what had reference to Him in the Scriptures to convince them that Christ had to suffer and thus enter into His glory.

This is all true, but what they’re forgetting here is that the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t preserved any of the apostles’ oral teaching! Or if they have, it’s so mixed up in the midst of invented nonsense that it can’t be found. Things like bowing to statues, Mary being the queen of heaven (see yesterday’s post for the dogmatic pronouncement of the RCC that this is so), the worship of the bread of the Lord’s Supper rather than the true oral teaching of the real presence, and the creation of an ecclesiastical organization with powers so far beyond any thing apostolic that they can rightly be described as bizarre, superstitious, and despotic.

Having stated that I don’t believe the RCC has any oral apostolic teaching to pass on to us, the question remains as to whether we need it and where we would find it if we did.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has rightly pointed out the confusion and disputes in Protestant Churches. This blog is often devoted to pointing out how badly Protestant Churches are misinterpreting Scripture; so badly, in fact, that most can be accused of not believing it at all, preferring their tradition even when Scripture clearly refutes it.

I think we have to do something, and finding the oral teaching of the apostles to the churches they formed seems like an excellent solution if that oral teaching can be found.

Many people agree with me, which is why there is such a revival of reading the early Christian writings among Protestants today.

The problem is, listening to those writings and to their teachings would rip apart the entire fabric of Protestant Christianity (just as it would rip apart the entire fabric of Roman Catholic Christianity).

To me, the primary problematic issue is that the oral teaching of the apostles highlights the clearly Biblical teaching that the church is supposed to consist of committed Christians who know each other intimately. Such a church can cleanse itself of leaven, as commanded in 1 Cor. 5, by putting out not only the adulterers and immoral, but even the greedy.

The problem is, if we did that, we’d lose at least half our Protestant members and probably more like 80 to 90% of them, thus depriving most pastors and church staff of a job.

If course if the 10% to 20% left, became part of one another’s lives, and formed Biblical churches, then the pastors and church staff could keep their jobs by either evangelizing or tickling the ears of the 80 to 90% that are left.

That sounds shocking, but at this point millions of people agree with me. George Barna, in his book Revolution, argues that up to 20 million Christians have left organized churches to seek the very sort of fellowship I’m talking about.

The bad news is that even most of those don’t really want God intervening in their personal lives, and working out unity by the power of the Holy Spirit is an undertaking that requires immense self-denial that most people are not willing to give. (Think of it like marriage. It sounds great when you’re courting, but give it some time, and those that are not willing to make significant sacrifices will fail.)

Enough for today. More tomorrow.

Posted in Bible, Church, History, Holiness, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | 10 Comments

The Magisterium and the Protestant Reformation

Posted on 12/20/2011 by Paul Pavao

I had never heard of the "magisterium"until I read The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman. He uses it to refer to the authorities of the church in his trilogy, which was written specifically as an attack on Christianity. (As usual, it utterly fails as an attack on the real Gospel of Jesus Christ because even all atheist authors unconsciously acknowledge a divine guiding hand behind all the events in their novels.)

The magisterium is the self-assigned and self-acknowledged "teaching authority" of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s a reference to whatever authority gets to decide what is true teaching. For Protestants, then, the magisterium is the Bible, though it’s not a very successful teaching authority because Protestants feel free to interpret it any way they want, even if the interpretations are ridiculous and embarrassing. For Roman Catholics, taken to its logical conclusion, the magisterium is the pope or a dogmatic council.

Protestants don’t use the word "magisterium," which is why many of you will never have heard it. So for the definition, I went to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article entitled Tradition and Living Magisterium. Their page prompted me to add a section to my history page on apostolic tradition.

It also prompted me to write this post.

This post is a refutation of things they say on their page, but the purpose is to teach some history that Christians need to be familiar with. I don’t mind refuting the grandiose and false claims of the Roman Catholic Church, but that is not the purpose of this post.

The Protestant Reformation: Over Doctrine or Over Church Authority?

The encyclopedia writes:

Luther’s attacks on the Church were at first directed only against doctrinal details, but the very authority of the Church was involved in the dispute, and this soon became evident to both sides.

This is an overly simplistic interpretation of what happened which hides the intrigue involved in the authority of the church becoming "evident" to Martin Luther.

Initially Martin Luther’s protest was only against the financial rape of the citizens of Germany by a huckster named John Tetzel. Luther was horrified that Tetzel was representing the church that he loved and of which he was a part. He was certain that the pope would be as horrified as he was.

So Luther posted 95 theses on the door of the cathedral at Wittenberg. These were an invitation to public debate and discussion about Tetzel’s activities.

What John Tetzel was doing was selling indulgences. These are "supererogatory merits" of Jesus and the saints that the pope and the Roman Catholic Church have stewardship of. In other words, Jesus and many of the saints did more good works than they needed, so their leftover works are in the custody of the pope to bestow on others who might need them to limit their time in Purgatory, the temporary place of suffering that the RCC says atones for sins that are not worthy of hell.

Yes, it’s ridiculous to the point of embarassment, but I’m not making it up.

Tetzel was selling these indulgences in order to collect money to build St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Tetzel was good at it. By threatening the superstitious peasants with the flames of purgatory and insisting that their departed mothers and grandmothers were burning there, they would collect the peasants’ last pennies to supplement the riches of Rome.

Luther, rightly horrified, and almost certainly with the permission of his superiors at the monastery, tried to put a stop to it by calling for a public discussion.

As I said, he was certain that the pope agreed with him. Thesis 50 states:

Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

Thesis 51 states:

Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

Thesis 53 states:

They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

Every one of the 95 theses deals with the selling of indulgences, just as these three do. And Martin Luther, who may not have known that the pope would be on his side, certainly expected that a righteous pope would agree with him. He had no idea that "the very authority of the Church was involved in the dispute."

The pope at the time, however, was not concerned with the poor, and he certainly would not have given to the German peasants while St. Peter’s Basilica went to ashes. He was furious that the preaching of one German monk was stopping the sales of a phone deliverance from Purgatory.

So he sent a brilliant debater, Johannes Eck, to put an end to Luther’s arguments in front of a council of church leaders and German lords.

Eck was brilliant, and he knew that arguing positively for the extortion of the poor was not going to go over well in a Germany that had been prepped by Luther’s preaching. Instead, he turned the debate around. He did some research, found the councils that lent authority to indulgences and the sale of indulgences, and accused Luther of rebelling against the authority of the church.

Eck skillfully brought the debate to a turning point. Either Luther would acknowledge that indulgences could be sold without restraint in Germany, no matter how much the poor were scalped, or he was denying the authority of the councils and the pope.

Luther not only took the bait, but he swallowed the hook, line, sinker, pole, Johannes Eck, and the entire Roman Catholic Church. He turned himself completely around, gave up his support of the pope and of the Roman Catholic Church, and pronounced them to be doers of evil.

This is the real way that it "became evident" to Luther that the authority of the church was on the line. It was forced upon him by Johannes Eck and a council of ecclesiastical leaders. Support the extortion of the poor or deny the authority of the church. Those are your only choices.

I’ve used a thousand words already. Let’s address the other issues I want to address from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the magisterium tomorrow.

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

(What) Blessings to You?

Posted on 12/19/2011 by Paul Pavao

I got a very nice email today ending with " … many blessings to you." I nicely sent back, "Blessings to you, too."

What blessings?

Sadly, we no longer know how to bless.

We say things like, "Bless you." Bless me? Who bless me? Bless me with what?

Those are not questions that used to be left open.

You’ve probably heard the Irish blessing that begins with, "May the road rise to meet you and the wind be always at your back." The whole thing goes like this:

May the road rise to meet you
May the wind be always at your back
May the sun shine warm upon your face
The rains fall soft upon your fields, and
Until we meet again
May God hold you in the palm of his hand

Much better! Now that’s a blessing!

The Scriptures teach us, "Bless, and do not curse." We incorrectly think that has something to do with cussing. It doesn’t. It has to do with literal cursing.

In fact, that’s where cussing comes from.

You probably think that "God damn you" is a bad thing to say because "damn" is a naughty word. Not originally. "Damn" used to be a curse word, not a cuss word. "God damn you" means "May God send you to hell after you die."

It’s the exact same curse as "Go to hell," except that "Go to hell" wishes you the punishment a little quicker, as in immediately.

The Scriptures consider blessing and cursing real things. You ought to read through some of the Scriptures on the subject, but here’s just one for you to consider:

Like a wandering bird or a flitting sparrow, so the curse without cause shall not alight. (Prov. 26:2)

It surely follows that if a curse without cause shall not alight, the writer of that Proverb believed that a curse with cause would alight. Proverbs further tells us that life and death are in the power of the tongue. That does not only refer to insults that bring depression or encouragement that can bring healing to a sick person. It also refers to the real power of blessing and cursing.

We are men and women of God. Our blessings matter. So do our curses, which is why we don’t curse.

Before we quit, let’s discuss one more common blessing: gesundheit.

Gesundheit is the German word for health. When someone sneezes, saying "gesundheit" is a blessing, wishing them health. After a sneeze is a pretty good time to bless someone with a health blessing.

I believe blessings carry power, especially for a man or woman of God, but for the most part only if we mean them. The next time you hear someone sneeze, don’t say, "Bless you." How vague is that? Go ahead and say, "Gesundheit," which you can say with meaning without embarrassing yourself. Better yet, go ahead and embarrass yourself, stretch out your hand and say, "Health to you" or something similar.

Well, I probably won’t do that, so it’s embarrassing even to suggest you do, but some of you are braver than me.

What I do, however, is bless people specifically and on purpose. Even a "grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" at the end of one of my emails is put in there on purpose. What better blessing than grace? And peace is the very guide of our hearts (Col. 3:15).

Before a job interview, you can say, "May you find favor in the eyes of all you see, and may God turn all your plans and steps for good."

And it is not just people who are to be blessed. The followers of God should bless God as well. "Bless you, Father" is no better when directed at God than it is when directed at men. Read the Psalms and learn how men of God ought to bless God. But you can begin with Jesus’ teaching on how to bless God:

Our Father, who is in heaven, may your name be considered holy. May your kingdom come, and may your will be done on earth just like it is done in heaven.

That’s a real blessing!

"May your name be praised in all the earth!" "May your goodness be acknowledged by the sons of men." "May your enemies be scattered and disoriented."

I hope that helps. Go, bless and do not curse, for life and death are in the power of the tongue.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Sunday and the Resurrection of Jesus

Posted on 12/18/2011 by Paul Pavao

Today is Sunday. To the early Christians every Sunday was a celebration of the resurrection. On Sunday they would not kneel, and prayers were said with hands raised, which was the position of the cross to the early Christians. (Different way of looking at hand-raising, isn’t it?)

Jesus’ death was celebrated once a year, on Passover.

We’ve made a pretty big change in modern times. For many Christians, Sunday is a day on which we hear a sermon about Jesus’ death, while his resurrection is celebrated once a year on Easter.

Easter is a replacement for Passover. When the Council of Nicea ordered that Passover would only be celebrated on Sunday for Christians, it slowly became a celebration of the resurrection rather than a celebration of Jesus as the Passover Lamb.

Note that the Council of Nicea only changed the day for celebrating Passover, an annual occurrence. The weekly meeting for Christians had been primarily Sunday among Gentile Christians from the beginning.

In the fourth century, and since the second century for churches in the western Roman empire, Passover had been celebrated on the Sunday nearest Nisan 14, the day on which the Jews celebrate Passover. Over time, however, due to reasons not worth explaining here, it became the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after March 21. In the east, among the Eastern Orthodox Churches, April 3 is used rather than March 21. Yes, they often celebrate Easter on a different date.

The result is that things are a bit backwards today. Because we have also replaced the Gospel—which to the apostles was a proclamation of the entire life of Christ—with an outline of the atonement, our Sunday sermons often focus on the death of Christ. Thus, the weekly meeting now primarily focuses on Christ’s death, while his resurrection is celebrated annually on Easter.

Posted in Gospel, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

No Condemnation to Whom?

Posted on 12/14/2011 by Paul Pavao

You may or may not have noticed, but modern translations differ significantly from the King James Version at Romans 8:1. Modern translations, like the NASB and the NIV, say that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. The KJV, however, adds the clarifying sentence, "who do not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

I’ve heard some Christians complain that the new versions take responsibility away from us. Like the false teachers mentioned in Jude, they turn grace into a license for sin (Jude 4), by removing the requirement to walk in the Spirit.

I don’t agree.

Don’t get me wrong. Paul makes it very clear that there is condemnation for those who claim to be in Christ Jesus but who do not walk after the Spirit. "If we live according to the flesh," he says just eleven verses later, "we will die."

Whether you believe that death is only physical (as ridiculous as that interpretation is) or whether you believe it is spiritual, Romans 8:12 proclaims judgment on those who walk after the flesh rather than after the Spirit. Galatians 6:7-9 does the same, saying that those who sow to the flesh will reap corruption from the flesh.

In both cases, our walking after the flesh is not simply forgiven or covered in the blood of Christ. Those who walk after the flesh are not among those blessed ones "to whom the Lord will not impute sin."

But Paul does not need to point that out in Romans 8:1. He already points it out in Romans 8:2!

Sometimes it’s good to make sure we understand one verse because it clarifies a whole lot of others.

Romans 8:2 says, "The law of the Spirit of life has set us free from the law of sin and death."

Somehow, most of us (including me for many years) read that comment about the law of sin and death, and we have some general, hazy idea of "the law of sin and death" that we never really think through. We just sort of think, "Yeah, yeah; Jesus died for us." We never get around to really ruminating on the Word of God and becoming clean by doing so.

The law of sin and death is the law that Paul has just spent an entire chapter explaining. There were no chapter breaks in Paul’s original letter to the Romans. He’s still talking about what he described in Romans 7. Sin lives in us, compels us to disobedience, and then disobedience to the law of God slays us.

The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, Paul tells us, has delivered us from Romans 7.

Romans 8:1 doesn’t need the clarifying statement “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Romans 8:2 is that clarifying statement.

Paul even ties Romans 8:2 to Romans 8:1 with the Greek word gar, which basically means "because." There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, because the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has delivered them from the law of sin and death.

What is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus? Paul goes on to explain that. Romans 8:3 also begins with gar. It explains Romans 8:2. The Law of Moses couldn’t deliver us from our bondage to sin, Romans 8:3 tells us, but God could and did. He did that by sending his own Son in the likeness of our sinful flesh, and as an offering for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.

Romans 8:4 then has the clarifying statement that is not needed in Romans 8:1. "The righteous requirement of the Law is fulfilled in those of us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

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