Apostles and AI Wits

Posted on 07/01/2011 by Paul Pavao

Today I read the following on Facebook:

Apostles are those sent ones who had seen the risen Christ. If one has not seen the risen Christ they are not Apostles.

Ignoring the grammar mistakes, let me complain about a real problem in supposedly Bible-believing churches. (I say “supposedly” because I see more that’s-what-we’ve-always-believed-believing than Bible-believing going on in those churches.)

The belief in the above quote comes from Acts 1:21-22, where Peter is leading the eleven apostles in picking a successor for Judas, who, as you know, had committed suicide. Peter says that the replacement for Judas needs to be someone who had been with them the whole time they’d been with Jesus, from the baptism of John to the day he was taken up into heaven. And that person would be a witness with them of the resurrection.

So, does that mean that for anyone to be called an apostle, he must have seen the risen Christ?

Possibly.

If you know that Barnabas and Paul are called apostles (Acts 14:14), and are thus aware that the 12 were not the only apostles, then it only takes a moment’s thought to realize that there’s more than one interpretation of Acts 1:21-22. It might mean that anyone who is called an apostle has to have seen the risen Lord, but it also might mean that the twelve, being a special group of people, can only include people who had been with Christ from the beginning to the end.

In fact, why the focus on seeing Christ risen? Doesn’t Acts 1:21-22 give a much greater requirement than that, a requirement that even the apostle Paul does not meet? Doesn’t it say that the replacement for Judas must have been with Christ from the baptism of John to the ascension?

Nonetheless, this person on Facebook gives his opinion about apostles as though it carries some sort of divine authority.

He’s not the only one, of course. It’s my experience that most Protestants don’t believe there are apostles today, and the reason they give is that an apostle must have seen the risen Lord.

Why do they believe this?

Because that’s what they were told.

What I said above is undoubtedly true. There are at least two interpretations of Acts 1:21-22, and there is nothing to indicate the common Protestant belief is a likely interpretation.

Nonetheless, if you point that out, those Protestants who believe apostles must have seen the risen Lord will argue vehemently that they are standing on Scripture. Of course, they’re not standing on Scripture. They’re standing on tradition, and it’s not even an ancient tradition. It belongs only to the Protestants, so it’s less than 500 years old.

Roman Catholics and Orthodox would argue that the apostolic office was passed on to the bishops in the churches. Their authority went from apostle to bishop to the next bishop, etc. They call it apostolic succession.

While I believe that both the Roman Catholics and Orthodox lost their apostolic succession long ago, their argument is based on a justifiable, ancient tradition, that can honestly be argued to have come from the apostles.

The Protestant tradition is just someone’s possible, but not likely, interpretation of Scripture that’s spread around the Protestant churches by word of mouth.

AI Wits

I want to coin a new term: AI Wits.

That sounds like a nice name, right? AI usually stands for artificial intelligence, and wit indicates good reasoning skills.

But really, it’s short for Anything I Want Is True.

It seems to be the approach that most “Bible-believers” have to believing the Bible. If it can possibly, by any stretch of the imagination or twist of a word, be interpreted in the way I want it to be interpreted, then it must be so.

I’m not picking on a specific group of people, by the way. I’m talking about me and you. If we don’t work at learning from God, we’re going to learn from what we prefer.

By the way, when you start learning from God, expect to be grilled a lot by your peers.

It even happened to Peter (Acts 11:1ff).

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

On Leukemia and the Grace of God: A Short Comment

Posted on 06/29/2011 by Paul Pavao

From a note to my aunt:

God’s really given me grace for this, and he’s even given my wife and kids grace. The problem is, he’s not giving all my relatives grace, and I’m finding I have to share the comfort he’s pouring out on us.

It’s truly “amazing grace,” as miraculous as anything I’ve ever seen.

One of the things that brought me to Christ was seeing the movie, "In the Presence of Mine Enemies."

When all those people who had been POW’s, tortured for years, came out and fell on their knees and gave thanks to God, I was angry. Why would they thank the God that had allowed such terrible suffering? All I could conclude was that God must have been present with them during their suffering, and that’s why none lost their faith.

Now I understand.

Posted in Leukemia | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Yippee! I Have Leukemia!

Posted on 06/28/2011 by Paul Pavao

As I write this on June 25, I only have a preliminary diagnosis from my family doctor of Leukemia. It’s Saturday, and I have an appointment with the cancer center in Corinth, MS on Monday to confirm the diagnosis and find out more.

I’m scheduling this post for June 28 so that my appointment would be passed and I’d know I really have Leukemia (June 27 note: I do). If they say I don’t, then I won’t let this run, and I have to admit, I’ll be really disappointed.

Here’s why.

Keep in mind in what follows that my family has much more to lose than I do. It’s easy for me to have a positive outlook. I am only in danger of a bit of suffering and possibly dying. My family’s in danger of losing a husband and father, and there’s really nothing to compare to that kind of sorrow except losing a child. They’re handling it as well as me, which is very impressive.

First, when you’re a Christian and the purpose of your body is to glorify God, then there is really no difference between a clean bill of health and a diagnosis of leukemia. God is simply giving you the tools you need to do what you’re supposed to do with your body.

How could having leukemia be a good tool? In a myriad of ways.

The Pros and Cons of Contracting Leukemia as a Christian

I was weighing the pros and cons of having leukemia, and there some pretty significant pros:

  • The Scriptures say that Wisdom is the principle thing. Therefore, it says that "in all your getting, get understanding" (Prov. 4:7). Along those lines, the Psalmist prays, "Teach us to number our days, so that we may obtain a heart of wisdom" (Ps. 90:12). Leukemia is a quick way to number my days!
  • There’s people to see and talk to that I would never be able to talk to otherwise.
  • It should be easier to display faith in Christ to these people because they’re going to be expecting me to think something bad is happening to me.
  • In general, any statements that I make that God can be trusted in every situation will carry more authority than they would if everything was going well for me.
  • Living and dying are in the hands of our Father in heaven. Saints don’t die because they have leukemia. Saints die because it’s the will of God for them (Is. 57:1-2; Ps. 116:15).
  • I have a friend with cancer, and now I get to go through this with her … consoling others with the consolation I’ve received and all that.

The cons?

  • Distress on my family
  • I can barely exercise at all (I think God told me he didn’t like my obsession with exercise anyway)
  • There’s a real danger of focus on self: self-pity, loving the attention, or taking over conversations by bringing up leukemia

As you can see, the pros outweigh the cons by a lot except perhaps the distress on my family. But they’re trusting God really well, which is awesome.

So I’m excited to enter this new phase in my life.

Divine Healing

I believe in divine healing. I’ve seen it happen.

Unless God really speaks to you that I’m wrong, please don’t pray for me to be healed and possibly ruin this new ministry God has called me to.

You can pray for me to be healed in his time. I don’t think I’m supposed to die.

What God’s Been Saying to Me

If you’ve been reading my blog, then you know that I don’t write that God told me this or God told me that. I’ve heard God speak clearly in terms I felt comfortable repeating to others, but not often.

Except this week. From the day last week when I finally became convinced that there’s something badly wrong with my health and yesterday when the doctor told me a stress test was unnecessary because he could see the enlarged, abnormal lymphocytes in my blood smear (along with anemia and low platelets)—between then and now, I believe God has spoken several things to me pretty clearly:

  • I’m not going to die (real soon, anyway)
  • This is supposed to be happening to me
  • My attitude toward exercise has always been too positive
  • I’m supposed to eat healthy and heartily because my nutrition is more important than weight loss. (This was obviously correct now that I know the problem’s leukemia, but the direction from God came before I knew.)
  • If I want to lose weight, I’m allowed to exercise better self-control in the evening, but otherwise no dieting for weight loss.

I guess I’ve put myself and my Christianity on the spot here, huh? If I’m dead in a few months, whether from leukemia or from a car wreck, I’ll just be one more false prophet. I didn’t know what else to do but be honest and let you judge the success I’m experiencing following Christ.

By the way, I gave my brothers and sisters in the church an opportunity to tell me they didn’t bear witness to the things I think I heard from God. If they told me they disagreed, I wouldn’t have posted this.

So I guess it’s we and our Christianity that are on the spot.

The Grace of God and His Gifts

My family’s doing really well with all this. My attitude’s not just good, I’m thrilled! That’s purely the grace of God, and I want to give thanks.

By the way, don’t be jealous that it’s not you who gets to have leukemia and the ministry that goes with it. We each have our own gift, and yours matters as much as mine. I’m just expressing my zeal and gratefulness for the gift God has given me.

And perhaps correcting the mistaken impression that it’s not a gift.

By the way, I found out a friend of mine has a blog, and the first post I saw from him—just tonight!—is a writing by someone else who found their cancer to be a gift and a calling.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , | 13 Comments

Roman Catholicism and the Bible

Posted on 06/27/2011 by Paul Pavao

The last post, dealing with the Nephilim of Genesis 6, ended up touching on both the creation story and on modern doctrines versus the early traditions of the church.

By the way, someone sent me a link free online translation of the Book of Enoch. I forgot to mention that I was not that impressed with the Book of Enoch. I do not want to add it to our Bible! But it does give a version of the Nephilim story and the origin of demons that’s in the New Testament and held to by the early Christians (previous post).

So, while we’re transitioning towards tradition, let’s discuss Roman Catholicism.

Warning: There’s nothing very nice about this post. It’s just honest without any real regard for the feelings of Roman Catholics. I make no apology for that. This is, after all, a blog, not a discussion in my living room.

I got a newsletter for the Christian history section of Christianity Today that included this article on Pope Benedict XIV. It begins:

By decree on this day June 13, 1757, Pope Benedict XIV said the nations could have the Bible in their own tongues.

Wow. 1757?

So, what do you reckon happened? The pope got a sudden revelation that after 1700 years God had changed his mind, and now it was okay for Catholics to read the Bible in their own language?

Of course not. What happened is that the Roman Catholic Church was finally losing to the Protestants badly enough that it had to give up some of its more egregious errors and offenses against humanity and against the teachings of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. (Quite similar to when the Latter Day Saints had a sudden revelation in the 1970’s that God had removed the curse from blacks, and now African-Americans could be priests.)

Let’s not forget that not only did the Roman Catholic Church burn people for giving the Scriptures to common people (e.g., John Huss, but there were many others). They even dug up John Wycliffe’s bones to burn them posthumously 12 years after he died.

Nothing against individual Roman Catholics. They’re the ones that I pray will be delivered from bondage to the magisterium and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church (which is neither Scriptural nor an apostolic tradition).

But let’s face it. To suggest that an organization which has burned people to death for translating the Scriptures is the one, true commissioned church of Jesus is just nonsense.

Yes, they’ve utterly disqualified themselves forever over just that one centuries-long bit of tyranny. But don’t worry, if you need more before you join me in rejecting them, you can study a little medieval history and grow far more disgusted with the magisterium and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Real Church

In Scripture, and in the earliest church fathers, the churches–it was usually plural in the 2nd century fathers, not singular–consisted of all the Christians in a local area, committed together as one family, sharing each other’s lives, that interacted in a network without any hierarchy above the local church.

That’s Biblical and traditional ecclesiology—if the tradition you’re concerned about is apostolic tradition.

If that’s offensive, too bad. They shouldn’t have murdered thousands or millions of people for trying to serve God and (of all things!) for giving out the Scriptures (free of charge!) to the common people.

Oh, wait. Let’s not forget what that hierarchy and magisterium did to the Muslims during the crusades.

No sense pretending. We might as well face what we have to face.

I don’t know what you’re looking for. I’m looking for that wonderful love and unity that marked the church in Acts 2:42-47. I believe God offers it, and the place it is found is in the local church, among Christians who have been taught to follow Christ according to the Scriptures and by the Spirit.

If it’s at all possible, read the next post, which is written and scheduled for Wednesday. It’s on a completely different topic, and it will certainly be among the most unusual posts you have ever read. If you’re on my personal mailing list, though, then you’ve already read it.
Posted in Church, History, Modern Doctrines, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

A Neat (and Biblical and Traditional) Story About Where Demons Came From

Posted on 06/25/2011 by Paul Pavao

You really need to read the previous post so you’re caught up on why I’m telling you a story from the Book of Enoch and claiming it’s Biblical and historical.

(But don’t tell anyone I told you because the stuff I wrote yesterday is a family secret, stuffed away in the cellar, and we’re all supposed to pretend it’s not there.)

First …

Demons Are Not Fallen Angels

The fallen angels from Genesis 6? The sons of God? According to Jude 6 and 1 Pet 3:19, they’re in eternal chains, awaiting the day of judgment. They’re out.

The third of the angels that fell in the beginning with the devil? Have you ever looked at where that modern idea comes from?

The only place that discusses such a fall of angels is Revelation 12. Do we really think Revelation 12 happened before the creation of mankind? Why? Is Revelation 11 about pre-history? Is Revelation 13 about pre-history? What in that chapter makes us claim that it happened before mankind was created??? That’s just bizarre.

Worse, we’re making a plausible but far less than certain interpretation by saying that the third of the stars thrown to the earth by the dragon are angels rebelling against God. He does have some angels, but they are not necessarily fallen angels from God. The Greek word angelos means messenger. We’re leaving it untranslated when we render it as angel.

And, yes, there are several places in the New Testament where angelos is used of messengers who are not heavenly beings. (7 of them; Matt. 11:10 is one, and Luke 7:24 is another.)

Anyway, the fallen angel theory doesn’t have much to support it.

The Book of Enoch Story Which Early Christians Believed

Early Christians believed the story that was in the Book of Enoch (which was quoted by Jude and reference by Jude concerning Genesis 6, but we’re not supposed to tell you that because it’s a buried in the attic family secret).

Anyway, that story says that God was very angry with those angels who didn’t guard their origin and who went to earth and took wives. They had children who were giants, or Nephilim, in Hebrew.

The giants were also judged because they were destroying the world.

Their judgment wasn’t the same as their angelic fathers, who were reserved in eternal chains for the day of judgment (Jude 6 and the Book of Enoch). Instead, God killed them, and he cursed their spirits to wander the earth forever.

Those are the demons.

Justin Martyr, for example, comments:

But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons. (Dialogue with Trypho 5)

So now we have the testimony of the Book of Enoch, which seems backed up by the Epistle of Jude, which was obviously believed by Justin Martyr.

What about elsewhere in Scripture?

Well, my Scriptural argument would include "Legion," the 2,000 demons that were in the demoniac in Mark 5. Have you ever wondered why those demons didn’t want to leave the country? Or why they would ask if they could enter pigs?

If demons are spirits of the judged Nephilim, then they may still be attached to the areas they lived in when they were alive. If the curse of wandering the earth as a disembodied spirit is really a curse, then they may long to live in bodies through possession. Matthew 12:43 does mention that when a demon is cast out, it wanders through dry places and can’t find rest.

Interesting, huh?

Posted in Bible, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

The Nephilim, the Book of Enoch, Honesty, and Fear

Posted on 06/23/2011 by Paul Pavao

One more of the questions that was asked of John Lennox today (June 18; I’m scheduling these posts 2 days apart) was who the Nephilim were.

Nephilim is the Hebrew word translated "giants" in Genesis 6:4. These Nephilim were the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

Weird passage. How do we interpret it?

John Lennox mentioned that the Nephilim are addressed in the New Testament, and then he quoted Jude 6:

And the angels, who did not guard their origins, but left their dwelling place, he has reserved in eternal chains under darkness for the judgment day.

I completely agree that Jude 6 is a reference to the Nephilim of Genesis 6.

I get wildly frustrated when I hear someone like John Lennox say that and then stop.

HELLO! JUDE IS REFERENCING THE BOOK OF ENOCH! HE’S SAYING WAY MORE THAN THAT THE “SONS OF GOD&amp” ARE ANGELS AND THAT THE NEPHILIM ARE CHILDREN OF ANGELS!

Sorry for shouting, but let’s let all our brothers and sisters in on a secret that’s hidden away in the cellar.

There’s a Book of Enoch, and Jude quotes it!

Yes, that’s right. When Jude says Enoch prophesied about the judgment on ungodly men doing ungodly deeds in an ungodly way, he’s quoting the Book of Enoch. Depending on the version you read, the verse he’s quoting is either the last verse of chapter one (1:9) or the first verse of chapter two (2:1).

You know what else? The Book of Enoch is in the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

You know what else? It’s obvious that the Book of Enoch was read by many in the early church.

You know what’s even more important? The Book of Enoch is quoted as containing Enoch’s words in a letter that you consider inspired by God and infallible!

I, on the other hand, being a student of church history, know that I can question whether the Epistle of Jude is really inspired and ought to be in our New Testament. Most of the early churches did, and to this day the Nestorian congregations, now known as the Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East, who were excommunicated back in the 5th century over issues that Christians only pretend to understand, do not have Jude in their Bibles. In fact, they don’t have Revelation, either. Nor second or third John.

Shh. Don’t tell anyone. We have some things that we like to keep secret.

Okay, draw closer here so I can whisper.

— hushed tones —
If anyone asks you about the Nephilim, you’ll sound really knowledgeable if you quote Jude 6 … and maybe 1 Peter 3:19, too. But don’t tell anyone that Jude quoted the Book of Enoch because we really don’t want anyone to think about the implications of that.

Letting the Cat Out of the Bag

You know what’s really cool? The Book of Enoch has a neat story about why there are demons.

We think they’re fallen angels today. But, those angels that fell in Genesis 6 are kept in eternal chains awaiting judgment.

Oh, oh. I have to make this wait for the next post. I just realized that you might believe the modern myth that Satan caused one-third of the angels to rebel in the beginning.

That’s not true. Do you even know where that myth comes from?

I’ll explain all that next post. I don’t want to make this one too long.

😀

Posted in Bible, History, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Evolution and Romans 5:12

Posted on 06/21/2011 by Paul Pavao

I just got back from a question and answer session with John Lennox at the Creation Conference here in Birmingham. Among the many questions he was asked, there was a question about Romans 5:12:

Therefore, just as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, so death passed to all men because all sinned.

First, as an aside, let me point out that death passes to all men because all sin, not because they’re guilty of Adam’s sin. Let’s dump that version of original sin.

With that aside, the point of the question asked to John Lennox, and the one that’s been asked to me, and the one that all young earth creationists bring up, is that if evolution is true, then there had to have been death before Adam. How can there be death before Adam if death, by sin, entered the world through the one man, Adam?

John Lennox’ answer was that Romans 5:12 is only talking about human death. There could have been animal death before Adam–and there certainly was plant death because they were given for food even in Genesis one–just not human death.

My answer is, "Why in the world are y’all asking such a question?"

According to Ephesians 2, we’re already dead in our trespasses and sins. Romans 5:12 isn’t talking about physical death. It’s talking about spiritual death.

The same is true back in Genesis. I’m not the first person to bring up the point that the punishment for eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was, "In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:17). Yet Adam didn’t die for 930 years after eating of the fruit.

Yes, some Christians say that God meant that Adam would begin to die, or become susceptible to death, in the day that he ate of the tree. But at least as many say that Genesis 2:17 threatens a spiritual death, a separation from God, not a physical death, and that spiritual death did happen in the day that he ate of it.

Of course, I think that the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth that is not historical, and so it is not meant to be literally accurate in its details. I can’t get technical about "in the day," but I do think God included that story in the Scripture because it tells us something from the Spirit of God—yes, I believe Scripture is inspired. Man sinned, man died spiritually, and men today are separated from God by the death that is in their spirits through sin.

Thus, I don’t think Romans 5:12 has anything to do with death before Adam. It has to do with the rebellion of the first created man—And like all Christians, I believe that there was a first man or men into whose nostrils God breathed the breath of life, even if those men were formed from the dust of the ground over millions of years rather than in a one-day marathon of pottery by God–and all his descendants.

It’s not just Romans 5 that’s talking about spiritual death. It’s Romans 5, 6, 7, and 8. In Romans 8:12-13, we’re told that it’s those who live according to the flesh who will die, while those who put to death the deeds of the body through the Spirit will live. Is that really physical death in those two verses? Those who live spiritually will never die physically, only those who live according to the flesh?

I don’t think so, and neither do any of you.

Posted in Bible, Evolution and Creation, Gospel | Tagged , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Richard Dawkins’ Most Important Concession?

Posted on 06/19/2011 by Paul Pavao

Before I go on with discussing evolution and the inspiration of the Scriptures, I have to pass on this quote from Richard Dawkins, the famed atheist and author of the God delusion:

I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and how it came to be, you are naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration, and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this. I recognize that other scientists, such as Carl Sagan, feel this. Einstein felt it. We all of us share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life, for the, uh, the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time. And it’s tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent; you want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator. What science has now achieved is an emancipation from that impulse.

That was from a debate with John Lennox, who did a superb job dealing with Dawkins, who has spent most of his adult life arguing with Christians.

The point is, that what God said is true. Nature declares the glory of God. Even when you believe in evolution, are an atheist, and are very angry with Christians and religion, nature still compels you to bow and worship the Creator.

Dawkins thinks you ought to overcome that impulse.

The Creator thinks that impulse leaves you without excuse.

Now who knows better, the Creator or his creation?

Hmm …

Posted in Evolution and Creation | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Evolution, Creation, and the Glory of God

Posted on 06/17/2011 by Paul Pavao

I’m at a creation conference that was supposed to present 3 different views of creation that are in vogue among committed Christians:

  • Young earth creationism: The earth was created 6 to 10 thousand years ago in 6 literal days, presented by Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis.
  • Old earth creationism: The Hugh Ross version includes both “the gap theory,” in which there’s a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and the “day-age theory,” wherein the days of Genesis one are actually epochs. He allows for no evolution, though, instead believing that God created millions of species miraculously over a long period of time.
  • Intelligent Design/Theistic Evolution: This view allows for evolution, but the speaker, Michael Behe, believes that there is evidence that evolution needed divine intervention to happen.

The conference actually presented four views, because John Lennox, the keynote speaker, said enough in his initial speech to essentially present his own rather wild and unique view. He’s a mathematician, published in peer-reviewed journals something like 79 times, so he applied his deeply logical, mathematical mind to Scripture in such a way as to find every possible loophole that any view could use to appear Scriptural.

His speech definitely made some Biblical room for evolution.

You’d think a guy like me, who believes in molecules to man evolution …

… but, hey, don’t forget, I’M A CHRISTIAN WHO BELIEVES GOD CREATED EVERYTHING!!!

I had to throw that in there. When I mention evolution, Christians snap into a zombie-like trance and begin chanting somewhat incoherent statements about their firm conviction that there is a creator.

Yeah. That would be why I and my family picked up and moved into a Christian community, submitted ourselves to Christian leadership, opened our lives to the input of deeply committed brothers and sisters in Christ, and endeavor every day to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and prove worthy followers of our great and glorious God and Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Okay, try to hold that thought in mind, while I get back to mentioning that I believe in molecules to man evolution …

I’m a Christian. Jesus is the Word of God, Creator of all things. I wrote a really good book about that. You still with me? You may not like evolution, but we are agreed that there’s a Creator. All your arguments that our Father created everything are preaching to the choir here.

Okay, anyway, you’d think that a guy like me who believes in evolution would have been thrilled with the brilliant and insightful John Lennox loopholes.

Nope. I was a little astonished to realize that all the speakers disagree with me.

Then I looked around the room and I realized that probably every person in the place would be offended by me … not by my opinion about evolution, but by my opinion about the Bible.

But I’m ready to stand up for it.

The Bible’s not about science. The Bible is not always accurate history. It doesn’t matter a bit whether evolution fits the Bible or not. Genesis one isn’t about how God created the earth. Genesis one is a creation myth. Moses wasn’t there, and he when he added Genesis one to the Law–to the suzerain covenant he was writing–he had no way of knowing how accurate it was.

Nor did he care.

And I don’t care, either.

The inspiration of the Bible is a spiritual inspiration, and it must be spiritually discerned.

Thus, you must first be born again, possessed by the Spirit of God, and a follower of Christ before you have any good idea what the Bible is talking about.

Okay, this post is long enough. I’ll talk more about that over the next few days.

My main point is that Christians today need to beware. We are dangerously close to being primarily pharisees that can’t see or follow Christ … and worse, that don’t want to.

You search the Scriptures because you think that you’ll get Life from them. But these are they which speak of me, and you refuse to come to me so that you may have Life. ~ Jesus Christ, the Word of God

Posted in Evolution and Creation, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Doesn’t It Feel Great To Know What You’re Talking About?

Posted on 06/10/2011 by Paul Pavao

I got an email the other day from a guy who’s been debating the Jehovah’s Witnesses about the deity of Christ.

Because modern Christians generally have never even heard about what the early churches believed about the Trinity (almost none, with the possible exception of the Eastern Orthodox Churches), they are very confused when they hear quotes from the church fathers of the second and third centuries. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have taken advantage of this, and they have "quote mined" the early church fathers, putting a spin on those unfamiliar quotes that has nothing to do with what they meant.

Of course, even putting a spin on their quotes isn’t quite enough, so the Jehovah’s Witnesses have done some misquoting as well.

I sent this person chapters 16 and 17 of my book on the Council of Nicea because it provides dozens of quotes, in context, with explanations that make sense of the Council of Nicea. You can’t read those chapters, as well as the story of the council earlier in the book, and not know how accurate they are.

He then wrote back asking specifically about Papias.

Here’s where I really want to show you how good it feels to know what you’re talking about rather than just guessing and hoping that what you believe is true.

Papias was an early Christian elder who had spent time with the elder John, the man who possibly wrote the Book of Revelation. (You may have noticed how different the Revelation of John is from the Gospel and letters.) Early Christian testimony says that there was very likely two Johns in Asia Minor at the end of the first century. One was the apostle, and the other was an elder he appointed.

Irenaeus mentions him several times, saying that he knew him. Eusebius, around the time of the Council of Nicea, includes Papias in his history, mentioning that he’d written a book in five parts. He quotes him several times as well.

That’s all we know about Papias.

So now you know what I’ve got to say about that. I’m a trustworthy secondary source, though you need to make sure you know something about me before you grant me the trust I just said I’m worthy of.

But I can do one better than that.

I sent this man who emailed me a link to the Christian Classic Ethereal Library. That link I just gave you will put you right on the Papias page, where the editors of The Ante-Nicene Fathers have collected all the references to Papias in one place.

Go there, and you can use the navbar on the left once you get there to see all ten fragments referring to Papias.

After that, if anyone brings up that obscure but important figure in early Christian history—such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses—you can say, "Papias is only mentioned by Irenaeus and Eusebius, and there’s just ten fragments available on him."

If you read those fragments, which will take five to ten minutes, then you will have a small taste of early Christian writing, and you’ll be able to add, "And, by the way, I’ve read what little we have on him, and he really doesn’t mention the Trinity specifically, but he sounds just like everyone else in his time. In fact, since Irenaeus claims to have met him and quotes him as an authority, I think it would be fair to say that we can find out what Papias believed by looking at what Irenaeus believed."

It’s nice to know what you’re talking about, and it’s not that hard to know.

Why should we be wondering about what THE APOSTLES’ CHURCHES believed?

Have you ever checked out what some church believed? Have you ever asked a friend, looked a church up on the internet, asked questions of the pastor, or read their statement of faith?

How much more important to do that with THE APOSTLES’ CHURCHES!

I mean, think about it. Christians fight over so many things, wouldn’t it be wonderful to know what the churches believed and practices that were started by the apostles? I think we all believe that they have more authority than anyone.

There’s a letter from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth (you have to use navbar on left when you get to that link to read the chapters) just 40 years after Paul wrote his letters. Have you ever wondered whether they repented at the teaching and writing of Paul?

Another thirty or forty years later, Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippians. What was going on with them?

In fact, Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna at least as early as A.D. 116, maybe earlier. While he may not have been an elder in Smyrna when the book of Revelation was written, he could well have been a member (depending on when it was written). Smyrna was one of only two churches that were not rebuked by Jesus in Revelation chapters two and three.

So what sort of advice is given by this leader of one of the best churches in Asia Minor at the turn of the first century? It would take about 20 minutes to find out, at most.

It has always amazed me that church leaders haven’t told their people they can know things like this.

Posted in History | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment