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

Sola Scriptura, Tradition, and Bible Interpretation

Posted on 06/09/2011 by Paul Pavao

The idea for this post, the framework for yesterday’s post, and a couple quotes today come from Contra Sola Scriptura by an Orthodox believer.

Tradition and the Ancient Churches

Most of us, when we hear a Roman Catholic use the word "tradition," think of pronouncements from the magisterium, the Roman Catholic hierarchy, or from the pope himself.

The Roman Catholics do believe that the church, or the pope himself when he speaks ex cathedra, can reveal new traditions. They don’t believe their new traditions violate Scripture, but they will defend their right to establish new tradition. They don’t require themselves to go all the way back to the apostles to verify that tradition.

What I personally didn’t realize until the last couple years is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which are the "catholic" churches of the world outside of Europe and America, do not see tradition that way.

The article I reference above is written by an Orthodox believer and he says:

The notion of an extra-scriptural revelation coequal to Scripture was rejected in the Montanist controversy. The early Church recognized the Apostolic Tradition in both written and oral forms as interdependent and binding on the Church. There is no historical evidence in the early Church of an extra-scriptural authority independent of Scripture.

Here this Orthodox believer argues, and insists he is speaking from the Orthodox point of view, that there is no tradition in addition to Scripture.

Instead, he insists, Scripture and tradition, which must come from the apostles and not from any other source, are one and the same source:

The theology of the early Church had a singular source: The apostolic preaching in oral and written form.

That Orthodox author, Robert Arakaki ("robertar"), then quotes Richard Muller to establish the real difference between the Protestant and Orthodox understanding of Scripture:

The Reformation did not invent the view that scripture is the prior norm of doctrine, the source of all necessary doctrines, sufficient in its teachings for salvation. … What the Reformation did in a new and forceful manner was to pose scripture against tradition and practices of the church and at the same time, define scripture as clear and certain in and of itself and therefore "self-interpreting." (Emphasis mine)

One last quote to emphasize the difference between Protestant and Orthodox:

A more useful approach would be to describe the theological method of the early Church as "Scripture in Tradition" and the Protestant method as "Scripture over Tradition." Orthodox Christians can accept the former but not the latter.

In other words, the Orthodox would say that you need tradition to interpret the Scriptures. You cannot depend on your interpretation of Scripture to overthrow tradition.

Tradition and the Protestants

In that last sentence I almost wrote, "You cannot depend on your interpretation of Scripture to overthrow well-established tradition."

The Orthodox, apparently, are simply claiming that Scripture ought to be interpreted in the light of what the apostles transmitted to the church orally as well. If the apostles wrote the New Testament and interpreted the old by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then it only makes sense that the traditions they passed to the churches orally would explain the Scriptures accurately.

I think even a Protestant could grant that.

What a Protestant could not grant is that the Orthodox Churches, two thousand years after the apostles preached, should be trusted when they tell us what those oral traditions of the apostles were.

We have to remember as we discuss the Protestant view of tradition that the Protestants were protesting against Roman Catholicism, not the Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Church that the Protestants left was a morass of superstition, ignorance, and idolatry. (There’s no better description of the problem than John Calvin’s letter to Cardinal Sadolet.) If we are to judge a prophet by his fruit—or a church by its fruit—as Jesus teaches in Matthew 7, then it is almost impossible for any religion to fail more miserably than late medieval Roman Catholicism.

Thus, it seems impossible that the Protestant Reformers could have drawn any other conclusion than that Scripture triumphs tradition. When it came to late medieval Roman Catholic traditions, not only did Scripture triumph that tradition, but so did common sense and human decency!

The tyrants in the magisterium of the late medieval Roman Catholic Church needed to be overthrown whether on a religious or a secular basis.

But now they are overthrown.

They are angry that they’re overthrown, and I’ve been dealt the most awful insults by Roman Catholics because I point out the long litany of evil their church has produced. Worse, in their eyes, is that because the fruit is bad, I make the tree bad, saying that the Roman Catholic Church is as evil as the fruit it has produced. (Not individual Catholics, just the hierarchy. It’s antichrist, and its fruit proves it.) Finally, because I have immersed myself in the writings of the pre-Nicene church, I’m able to point out that their evil hierarchy did not exist in the second and third centuries and that their supposed apostolic succession is a myth.

And now that they’re overthrown, it’s high time that we, the descendants of those who rightfully overthrew the power of the Roman Catholic magisterium, get back to truth.

The fact is, whether we are prepared to take the word of the Orthodox Churches on the matter of apostolic traditions or not, it is not that hard to find out what the apostles taught their churches on most major issues.

We Protestants have not done that … and for good reason.

It would overthrow most of what’s important to fundamental and evangelical Protestants.

Arakaki (who wrote the post linked at the top of the page) quotes Philip Schaff, one of my favorite historians, to establish that. Keep in mind as you read this that Schaff was a Calvinist, prone to that weird sort of arrogance I’ve only found in Calvinists. (It’s difficult to explain, but it makes it almost impossible for them to even notice when they’ve been completely contradicted by Scripture or bested in an argument.) Far form being a Roman Catholic, he was part of the most conservative strain of Protestantism.

On the other hand the theology of the fathers still less accords with the Protestant standard of orthodoxy. We seek in vain among them for the evangelical doctrines of the exclusive authority of the Scriptures, justification by faith alone, the universal priesthood of the laity; and we find instead as early as the second century a high estimate of ecclesiastical traditions, meritorious and extra-meritorious works, and strong sacerdotal, sacramentarian, ritualistic, and ascetic tendencies, which gradually matured in the Greek and Roman types of catholicity. (History of the Christian Church, vol. II, sec. 160)

Let me make a correction before I proceed. It is not true that the universal priesthood of the laity is not found in the early fathers. I know off the top of my head that it’s found repeatedly in Tertullian’s writings. What is true is that no one before Cyprian, a century and a half after the last apostle died, refers to a leader of the church as a priest.

Even the rest is true only if you interpret his words a certain way. What does "a high estimate of ecclesiastical traditions" mean? The second-century churches most certainly did not have the rigorous liturgy of later, larger churches. On the other hand, they did have set prayer times up to 7 times a day, they refused to kneel on Sundays in commemoration of the joy of the resurrection, and they loved the cross as a symbol, though they did not wear it hanging from their neck.

I say that because I don’t want to concede Schaff’s wording. I don’t think it’s accurate. But that the theology of the fathers doesn’t jive with the important doctrines of Protestantism? There’s no doubt that’s true.

The question is, do we care? Are we willing to find out what the apostles taught, and to adjust our Bible interpretations accordingly?

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

Posted in Church, History, Modern Doctrines, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sola Scriptura

Posted on 06/06/2011 by Paul Pavao

I read part of an article on sola scriptura today, and I thought it’s high time I addressed the subject here. This isn’t a response to that article. The article just provides an easy outline to address.

Sola scriptura, by the way, is the teaching that the Bible is the sole rule for faith and practice. There is no authoritative source of truth outside the Bible.

Literally, of course, it means "Scripture only."

The article reviews a book called The Shape of Sola Scriptura. The book makes three claims:

  • The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is consistent with the teachings of the early church fathers.
  • The New Testament teaches sola scriptura.
  • Sola scriptura is capable of providing church unity.

So let’s address these one by one:

The Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Is Consistent with the Teachings of the Early Church Fathers

The only early church fathers I would pay any attention to are those before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. After that, doctrine could be decreed. The churches could get together and change whatever they want, so I wouldn’t lean on any church father after Nicea.

Nonetheless, even the ones before Nicea constitute 4 or 5 times the amount of information that’s in the entire Bible. That’s hard to sift through, and easy to quote mine. (To quote mine is to quote out of context, making the author appear to say something contrary to what he really meant.)

To reduce the amount of material we have to sift through, let’s tie this one to the third one. Did the pre-nicene fathers believe that sola scriptura could produce church unity?

Irenaeus, around A.D. 185, said the following about how church unity was maintained. (The early churches didn’t have to produce unity; they already had it.)

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [Irenaeus here gives a statement of faith longer than but similar to the Nicene Creed.] … The Church, having received this preaching and this faith … carefully preserves it. … For although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the meaning of the tradition is one and the same. (Against Heresies I:10:1-2)

Tertullian, 20 years later, says something very similar.

[The apostles] founded churches in every city from which all other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith and the seeds of doctrine and are every day deriving them. (Prescription Against Heretics 20)

He adds:

Is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same error? … When that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error but tradition. (ibid. 28)

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian attribute the unity of the church to tradition, not to Scripture.

Mind you, they are not talking about a tradition issued from a hierarchy to all the churches. They are talking about a tradition given by Jesus Christ to the apostles, who then gave it to the churches. Holding to that tradition is what ensured the unity of the churches. There was no freedom to change the tradition, and any church that did change the tradition would have fallen out of sorts with all the other churches (even if that church was Rome).

I think that’s clear enough from the quotes I just gave you.

Thus, I think we can already say that the early church fathers did not teach sola scriptura, nor did they believe the doctrine capable of producing church unity. They already had unity, and that unity was based on a common tradition received from the apostles … say they.

There’s more to say about the Scriptures and tradition, but we will save that for tomorrow.

Can sola scriptura Produce Church Unity?

We have already seen that the pre-nicene churches (those from apostolic times up to A.D. 325) attributed their unity, preserved since the time of the apostles, to a common, handed-down tradition.

But in the modern age, where unity is long gone, is sola scriptura capable of producing church unity?

Obviously not.

There are many millions of Christians in denominations that hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura. They are famous for division. If sola scriptura was supposed to produce unity, it’s failing miserably.

Does the New Testament Teach Sola Scriptura?

If it does, I don’t know where.

Here, however, are some verses that teach against sola scriptura:

… the house of God, which is the church of God, the pillar and support of the truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)

I have written these things concerning those who are trying to seduce you. The anointing which you have received from him remains in you, and you do not need any man to teach you. That same anointing teaches you about everything, and it is true and not a lie. Just as it has taught you, you shall remain in him. (1 Jn. 2:26-27)

[Christ] gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the full equipping of the saints to do the work of ministry and to build up the body of Christ. [This they will do] until we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God … so that we are no longer children, tossed here and there and blown around by every wind of teaching, by the trickery of men, and by their skillful deceit. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we may grow up into him in all things. (Eph. 4:11-15)

Thus, we need the church as the pillar and support of the truth. We need the anointing to teach us together so that we are not seduced. And, finally, we need God-appointed leaders to equip us to serve and build up the church so that we are not blown around by every wind of doctrine.

The Scriptures support every one of these actions. The Scriptures are profitable for doctrine. They are profitable for correction and instruction in righteousness. We need them so that we may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

But one man reading them by himself is not enough, and that is what sola scriptura teaches.

Even a group of men, depending only on Scripture, will almost always end up led astray, not in unity, disagreeing with everyone around them. How do I know that? Because it happens all the time! Look around!

Here’s what the Scriptures have to say about what will happen if all you have is yourself, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible:

Exhort/encourage one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb. 3:13)

Yes, what you can expect if it’s just you, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible is that you will be deceived by the hardness of your own heart. We need the exhortation of our brothers!

As Proverbs says:

He who separates himself seeks his own desire. He quarrels against all sound wisdom. (Prov. 18:1, NASB)

Hmm …

Tomorrow

Tomorrow we’ll talk about Scripture and tradition and how the early churches believed they mixed, and we’ll also look at the Roman Catholic and Orthodox view of tradition. There’s a couple interesting statements in that article I referenced at the top of the post.

Posted in Church, History, Modern Doctrines, Roman Catholic & Orthodox, Unity | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Religious Arguments

Posted on 05/31/2011 by Paul Pavao

Today I got an email from someone that left no return address. It was about gnosticism, a deviation from early Christianity that is enjoying a bit of a revival today, but not in its original form. (Click the link to read more about gnosticism in a new window.) Gnosticism molded itself to the intellectual/spiritual atmosphere of the Roman empire, and it has molded itself to the same atmosphere in America today.

As a result, those who are trying to revive gnosticism pass themselves off as enlightened and open-minded.

But they’re not enlightened or open-minded. They’re just wrong.

There are some things that are just true. History is not what you make it to be. History is what it is, and you are either learning it accurately or you’re fooling yourself.

This person wrote me and said:

If you base your information about gnosticism from a book by a person who called them heretics your information is going to be wrong.

Is that true?

That sounds plausible, maybe even apparently true, but on what basis should it be true? If I learn about a religion, and I decide that religion is wrong, then that means everything I learned about it is false? How is that logical?

When I was a young Christian, I loved reading “cult” books. I especially like Walter Martin, and he especially liked to take apart Jehovah’s Witness and Mormon doctrine. He most definitely called them heretics.

As a result, I heard Jehovah’s Witnesses, whom I talked to somewhat regularly, warn me that Walter Martin’s portrayal of them was inaccurate.

But you know what I found? The more I talked to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, the more I saw that Walter Martin was right on the money about them. He had done his homework. Everything he told me panned out.

Now, it’s true that his speech was inflammatory. It’s true that he put emphasis on the more embarrassing things, while both groups tended to avoid talking about those things.

That’s normal, but it doesn’t make what he said inaccurate.

Most of what I learned about gnosticism was learned from Irenaeus’ very long book, Against Heresies, written around A.D. 185. I’ve read it twice, and I’ve referred to it often, so I’m very familiar with it.

Later, though, I got my hands on copies of gnostic writings. (Well, not my hands actually because I found them all on the internet.) The Gospel of Mary Magdalene and The Apocryphon of John are a couple I read.

Those both jived completely with what Irenaeus said about gnosticism. And although Irenaeus spent most of his time on the Valentinians, the group with which he was most familiar, he was careful to say that gnostic teachers were always inventing new doctrines, so what he was saying wouldn’t apply in every detail to all gnostic groups.

Every one of them generates something new, day by day, according to his ability, for no one is deemed "perfect," who does not develop among them some mighty fictions. (Against Heresies I:18:1)

The point is to find out what is true. I took the time to verify that what Irenaeus said is true.

The real point in writing him off as a heretic hunter is to avoid what’s true. The person who wrote me accuses me of being wrong because I lean on Irenaeus, but my concern is truth, so I have done the work to have a solid basis for what I say. Supporters of gnosticism write Irenaeus off because they don’t like what he says, not because they’ve taken the time to determine whether it’s accurate.

When it comes to history and religion, what’s true remains true no matter what you wish were true.

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

Stopping To Smell the Flowers

Posted on 05/20/2011 by Paul Pavao

Thank God for wonderful, incredible, influential people like Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and even Martin Luther. They stood in them middle of the way and cried out for truth, even when people were purposely trying to run them over.

I try to follow them, bravely saying the things I believe I’m supposed to say, though obviously on a much, much smaller basis.

But there are others who change the world in a different way. They don’t stop everyone. They just stop the people who are willing to take the time and drink in their beauty.

I doubt Rachel Fagan will ever be doing much shouting in the middle of the way unless there’s a fire. But if you don’t stop to smell that flower by the side of the road, then you’re only partially living life. All work and no play, as they say, makes Jack stupid.

So, here’s a link to blogs from a couple of redheads, though that’s not why I’m linking to them. Hang around my blog too much, and while you’ll find hope, the diligent pursuit of “something more” can get tiring and oppressive after a while.

These here … these are fresh air. Take a deep breath, and be a little happier.

http://rachel-birdsong.blogspot.com/2011/04/my-encounter-12-miles-away.html

http://chloe-lifewithfreckles.blogspot.com/

Rachel’s just wonderful. What you read in that post above is how she is all the time. There’s hardly anyone like her. I don’t think there’s supposed to be. Just a few flowers like that planted, not for the rest of us to mimic–that’s impossible–but for the rest of us to be refilled with hope and joy and energy, to restore our color vision, and to keep us believing that life is good despite the hardships.

Chloe’s growing and paying attention. I linked to her blog, not a specific post, because no matter what day you’ll go there, you’ll find her learning in her own exuberant, right-brained way. (The right half of my brain is like a summer home. I really like it, but I don’t go there very often.)

“Paying attention” may not seem to fit into the last paragraph, but not everyone is paying attention, so they waste a lot of life’s lessons that come their way. I put “growing” in front of “paying attention,” but, really, that’s backwards. She’s growing because she’s paying attention.

There’s a lot of life that just happens, but the rest of your life will be much better if you pay attention through the boring bits so that you’re still paying attention when the lessons come.

Still don’t know what I mean? Follow Chloe’s blog.

Image by Chloe, used without permission :-D.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged | 1 Comment

Love Wins by Rob Bell

Posted on 05/18/2011 by Paul Pavao

I’ve been reading Love Wins by Rob Bell. I’m 89% done (percentage courtesy of Kindle).

***I wrote this a week ago; I’m finished with the book now.***

Originally I was not going to blog about it. After all, a thousand blogs have already covered his book. What could I possibly add?

Then I reached 89% of the way through the book.

I definitely have something to add.

Universal Salvation

First, a couple things need to be stated clearly. Rob Bell most definitely teaches universal salvation in the book. He doesn’t hint at it. He doesn’t suggest it might be true. He doesn’t ask questions only to get us thinking about it. He clearly and forcefully argues for universal salvation, providing one of the most comprehensive list of verses on the subject I’ve ever seen.

I read a blog post by Greg Boyd back when he was one of the only people who had read the book. Boyd suggests that Rob Bell is just speaking generally and asking questions. That’s very sweet of Mr. Boyd, but I don’t believe it’s accurate.

It’s true enough that when Rob Bell gets down to the very heart of the question—when he directly confronts the issue of universal salvation—he does indeed refuse to answer it. He says we can be free to speculate. But look at what he says along the way.

Chapter 4 of Love Wins is entitled “Does God Get What God Wants?” In that chapter Rob Bell points out that God wants all people to be saved, referencing the statement to that effect in 1 Tim. 2. 2 Pet. 3:9 says the same thing.

He makes it clear what the central point of the chapter is:

Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants? Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end? (ch. 4; emphasis his; I have no page numbers since I’m reading this on Kindle)

A little later he adds:

This insistence that God will be united and reconciled with all people is a theme the writers and prophets return to again and again. They are very specific … constantly affirming the simple fact that God does not fail.

Then:

At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God.

Finally, at the end of the chapter, when he dodges the question of universal salvation, he dodges it by saying the following:

How could someone choose another way with a universe of love and joy and peace right in front of them—all of it theirs if they would simply leave behind the old ways and receive the new life of the new city in the new world? The answer to how is “Yes.”

Bell goes on to explain that we see people “choose to live in their own hells all the time.”

Thus, the question is left open, but look at how it is left open! It is left open by the statement that anyone can be saved, even in the afterlife, because God wants everyone to be saved. They will only not be saved if they continue to reject the love of God eternally.

Saying What You Mean

I don’t have a problem with questioning tradition until it’s proven to be apostolic. I do it myself regularly. But I believe one should honestly admit when he’s purposely disagreeing with the status quo.

When people ask if Rob Bell is adopting a position of universal salvation, they are asking if he is rejecting the common teaching that some—and probably most—people will go to hell eternally, being tormented by God.

Bell not only rejects that teaching, he says that teaching creates a God that is horrific and that no one could possibly want to believe in. He spends a lot of chapter 5 explaining why.

Again, I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. In fact, I agree that eternal torture never seems just. But why deny it when asked about it?

And I’ve seen Rob Bell being interviewed about his book. He does not get to the point.

Do I Agree With Love Wins?

I’ve already said that I agree that no one can really believe that it’s just to torture a person eternally for sins committed during a short time on earth.

Even worse, most fundamentalists believe that God will torture a person eternally if they commit even one sin during their lifetime. In other words, we’re supposed to believe that God is a just judge when he torments a person in flames—eternally—for cheating on a test in 5th grade.

Sorry. That’s nonsense.

If that’s Scriptural, then I have to admit that I’m prepared to reject the Scriptures. That’s not justice. Only a monster would do such a thing, and I refuse to believe that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who delivered me at the name of Jesus, is a monster.

I don’t believe that going to hell for one sin is even remotely Scriptural, however. That teaching is less than a thousand years old, and the teaching it came from, that we’re all guilty because Adam sinned, didn’t show up until at least three centuries after Christ. We inherited death from Adam, a death we are already living in (Eph. 2:1-3), but we did not inherit a guilt for Adam’s sin for which we will have to face judgment on the last day (or immediately after death).

Scripture teaches that even those who don’t know about Christ can be “excused” by living according to their conscience (Rom. 2:14-15). Scripture also teaches that God will forget all the sins that a person has committed if they turn from their sins to a righteous life. No sacrifice is mentioned as necessary for this (Ezek. 18:21-22). Even further, King David says that God doesn’t want sacrifice to forgive sins; he wants a contrite heart (Ps. 51:16-17).

Thus, it’s clear that Scripture does not teach that people go to hell for committing one sin. In fact, people won’t go to hell even for many sins if they turn from their wickedness and do righteousness. Their wickedness will be forgotten, says the Scripture, and because of the righteousness which they have done they will live (Ezek. 18:21-22).

Rob Bell makes some beautiful, powerful points in Love Wins. I highly recommend reading it … unless you haven’t read the New Testament a few times. If you haven’t, then you should read the writings of the apostles first. Read Rob Bell later.

Rob Bell is a great, great teacher, but it is the apostles to whom Jesus committed the faith.

And Rob Bell leaves some important parts of it out.

Vengeance and Wrath

Jesus, according to the apostles, really will take vengeance on those who reject the Gospel.

The Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God and that do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. (2 Thess. 1:7-8)

Admittedly, Bell takes the time to argue that the word “everlasting” there shouldn’t be everlasting. Okay, fine. Let’s give him that.

Nonetheless, nothing about Love Wins acknowledges the God who punishes with “age-lasting” destruction and takes vengeance.

Nor do I think he’s terribly honest about the history of universalism in the church.

Errors in Love Wins

I’ve read all the writings of the 2nd century church. The claim that those who deny an eternal hell have been “at the center” since the first church is just not true. No one in the 2nd century church suggests such a thing.

Rob Bell references Origen and Clement of Alexandria as sources for such a teaching. There is no doubt that Origen taught universal salvation. Clement of Alexandria was one of his teachers, so it’s not a stretch to think that Clement agreed with him, but I don’t think it’s true, and Bell gives no reference and no quote for his claim.

Origen, by the way, belongs to the third century, and Clement began teaching around A.D. 190, almost at the end of the second century.

Either way, two men do not constitute “at the center,” especially when we remember that one taught the other. They were both from Alexandria, though Origen moved to Caesarea over disagreements with the bishop (probably jealousies by the bishop). Alexandria was a center of learning, the kind of place from which unusual speculation is likely to arise.

Descriptions of the Faith Vs. Teachings

Not only that, both Origen and Clement are teachers, and their writings are teachings.

There’s nothing wrong with that, but if you want to find what is “in the center” of Christian teaching in the early churches, you should read descriptions of the faith, not teachings and arguments.

Justin Martyr, for example, writes a description of what Christians believe to the emperor in an effort to have persecution dispelled. He is not trying to argue a position or think through a teaching. He is trying to honestly describe Christians and Christianity. He writes:

Among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. He will be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and will be punished for endless duration. (First Apology 28)

Thirty years later, Irenaeus wrote a defense of the Christian faith directed against gnosticism. In it he describes “this preaching and this faith,” which the church “although scattered throughout the whole world … carefully preserves … as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart” (Against Heresies I:10:2). Only a few sentences are given to describe this faith that the church held through the whole world as though she had one on the same heart, but it includes this:

… just judgment towards all, so that he may send … the ungodly, unrighteous, wicked, and profane among men into everlasting fire, but may … confer immortality on the righteous, holy, and those who have kept his commandments. (ibid. I:10:1)

Punishment of “endless duration” is what you find being taught by the early Christians “as though they have but one soul.” These things represent what was “at the center” of the first churches. Speculation by two men from Alexandria don’t change that.

Really Great Things in Love Wins

Rob Bell has some really great teachings in Love Wins.

For example, I think his description of the story of the Prodigal Son is by far the best I’ve ever heard. He explains that there are several stories in this one story. Each son has a story about himself, and the father has a story about both sons.

The father’s story is different than the sons’ stories, and believing the father’s stories about themselves can be life-changing.

The prodigal son himself believes that he is unworthy to be the father’s son. The father explains that nothing of the sort is true. The brother believes that he has slaved for years for nothing. The father explains that he was not a slave and that everything that belonged to the father belonged also to the sons.

Bell also provides a pretty decent description of the atonement in Love Wins. He explains that there are many descriptions of the atonement, and that we should embrace all of them and use the ones that are most relevant in explaining the atonement.

That portion will give you a bigger–and more Scriptural–picture of the atonement than you’ve ever had before. Simply excellent.

It’s not what Bell says to which I object. It’s what he doesn’t say–what he leaves out. That I’ve explained above in the errors section.

It seemed to me that these things were worth mentioning. My conclusion? It is the same as what I said above.

Read Love Wins, but make sure you’ve read the apostles repeatedly first.

Posted in History, Miscellaneous | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Electronic Church?

Posted on 05/16/2011 by Paul Pavao

I read a very interesting paragraph in a blog by Lisa Miller, former religion editor of Newsweek.

“When Bible study can be done on Facebook as easily as in the church basement, and a favorite preacher can teach lessons via podcast, the necessity of physically gathering each week in the same place with the same people turns remote.” (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/15/my-take-how-technology-could-bring-down-the-church/)

My book, In the Beginning Was the Logos, is now in print! It will be on Amazon in about a month, but it’s already at lulu.com, and it will be cheaper there even next month.

You can go to Christian History for Everyman to read more about it and to get to the lulu.com link. I’ll keep that page updated with any specials that Lulu is offering. My book will always (probably) be 20% off there, but Lulu is offering an additional 15% until May 31.

Only someone with a very modern view of the church could make such a statement. Not that the stament is inaccurate! If the church is what is commonly portrayed, at least in North America, then Ms. Miller’s assessment is spot on. If church is nothing more than a meeting you attend on Sundays–and perhaps on Wednesdays as well–then why bother? Ms. Miller specifically mentioned Rob Bell as one of those “favorite preachers.” Rob’s preaching is much more interesting and inspiring than the sermons in 99% of the churches out there. And if you sing at home, you can play whatever songs are your favorites, sung by professionals, on whatever sound system you have and at whatever volume you prefer.

But put that in context of the early churches:

—————
Acts 2:42: And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayers … and all the believers were together and had all things in common … and continuing daily in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meals together with gladness and unity of heart.
—————

You can’t replace that with an internet sermon!

Or how about this one from a century later:

————-
We who once valued above all else the acquisition of wealth and possessions now bring what we have into a common stock and share with everyone in need. We who hated and destroyed one another and, on account of of different customs, would not share the same fire with men of a different tribe now, since the coming of Christ, live familiarly with them. (Justin Martyr, First Apology 14)
————-

You can replace a weekly meeting with an exciting, excellent teaching by podcast. You can even, in a sense, replace corporate worship by watching it on a TV or computer screen.

But the church is not a weekly meeting!

The Scriptures call the church the household of God (1 Tim. 3:15). We say the same thing today, calling the church the family of God and referring to each other as brothers and sisters, but it must have some invisible, spiritual, or symbolic meaning for us because the majority of us can replace church with something we watch on a screen and listen to with headphones!

Obviously, the apostolic churches took the Holy Spirit’s words differently than we take them. They actually “lived familiarly” with one another and brought their extra money together to take care of “everyone” in need. They broke bread from house to house and ate their meals together with gladness.

That’s the sort of thing a family would do.

Wouldn’t you love to be in a family whose every member devoted their lives to kindness and love and in which every person was empowered by the Holy Spirit to achieve some measure of success living in love and service to others? Wouldn’t you love to be in a family that shared their lives and took care of each other with “singleness of heart,” so that you could count on changing the world together because you were devoted to ministry together?

That is what is supposed to be offered in every church.

It may seem hopeless to see that happen, but the first step is simple.

You have to give up your devotion to an organization that offers meetings because the church isn’t an organization anyway. (Remember? We’ve all heard that said, right?) Then you have to change your devotion to people.

And not to any people! One of the problems in churches today is that no distinction is made between those who are sold out to the will of Jesus Christ and those who are not. The sons of God cannot and should not be unequally yoked with the sons of Belial. The context of that verse is not marriage, though that’s the only context in which modern believers ever mention “unequally yoked.”

You need to devote yourself to others who love God like you do. No, not to others who have the same doctrine on the hundreds of non-essentials we normally divide over. It’s unity of Spirit that comes first, and the **result** of that unity of Spirit will be unity of faith (Eph. 4:3,13).

It doesn’t matter where they go on Sunday morning. Chances are that you can’t see them Monday or Tuesday morning, either, because they have a job that is different than yours. I know from experience that it’s not that hard to find time outside of church and work to fellowship with those who work somewhere else than you do.

There’s a lot of advice I’m tempted to give here, but it’s a temptation. We have to get a vision for what the church should be, know that it’s God’s vision as well, then trust God and make real efforts–efforts we can feel good about before God–to see the will of God happen.

At that point, it’s God who’s got to help you go forward. If the Lord’s not building the house or watching the city, then you’re laboring in vain. It’s Jesus we’re following, and it’s his Spirit that has the power to make the will of God happen.

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

God’s Righteousness

Posted on 05/05/2011 by Paul Pavao

I was quoted last night. One of the elders told the church here that I had said that we should not pursue righteousness.

Everyone was nodding. No one minded. Let me tell you why.

There is a useless righteousness. The apostle Paul once wrote:

[The Jews], being ignorant of God’s righteousness and going around trying to establish their own, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness for everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:3-4)

What is the difference between our righteousness, which becomes an idol keeping us away from God, and God’s righteousness?

Our Righteousness

We are often deceived into thinking that just because Paul was talking about the Law of Moses in Romans 10, then that means that the only false righteousness we can have is one based on carnal, earthly interpretations of Moses’ Law. Or, even worse, we think that now that Christ died, it doesn’t matter whether we live righteously at all. (That last one, as common as it is, has got to be the most egregious misunderstanding of any book of any time period.)

The real problem is that the Jews had a righteousness based on the letter—that would be Scripture—rather than on the Spirit.

We can be just as guilty as they.

First, just in case you think that’s not what Paul was talking about, listen to Jesus’ complaint about the Jews and their righteousness:

You search the Scriptures because you think that you have life in them. But these are they which testify of me! And you refuse to come to me so that you may have life! (John 5:39-40)

Who can deny that today it is a normal, mainline teaching that we should search the Scriptures because there is life in them?

God’s Righteousness

God’s righteousness doesn’t come from the Scriptures. It comes from heaven.

Listen, I’m not making a case against the Scriptures. You may notice that I’m quoting from them in this blog. I know which verses to quote because I read the Scriptures often. This blog post, and all others I write, are founded on the Scriptures.

The Scriptures "are they which testify of [Christ]."

Having read them, I know to go to Christ.

Having read them, I know that the sons of God are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:14), not just the Scriptures.

Having read them, I know that the church is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), something that the Scriptures never say about themselves.

Having read them, I know that God’s righteousness comes from God, through his Spirit, and not from reading the Scriptures and going off to do what we think are good works.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God has prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph. 2:10)

Is Jesus Christ our example? Are we not supposed to imitate him?

Jesus didn’t do anything that he didn’t see his Father doing. In fact, he states, "Of myself, I can do nothing" (Jn. 5:19 and Jn. 5:30).

How much more can we not do anything of ourselves? How much more should we not do anything we don’t see our Father doing? How much more do we need to lean on the Spirit of God?

God has prepared some works in advance for you to do! If you get too busy doing your own works, you’ll miss his!

Your Righteousness, God’s Righteousness, and Hypocrisy

All of us have things we’re good at and things that are very difficult for us.

For me, it’s very easy to receive admonishment. I consider all of it. Harsh words don’t upset me, and insults don’t bother me. I bear them patiently, and I try to learn from them. I don’t even have to wrestle my fleshly nature to be that way.

But if I try to explain something to you, and you’re not getting it? Well, then my blood pressure rises. I get frustrated, and I want to yell, "Are you not listening? Why can’t you get this?"

There are worldly temptations that are not a temptation at all to me. There are others that are a terrible difficulty.

All of us are that way.

Left to ourselves, we’ll pat ourselves on the back for our strengths and ignore our weaknesses.

We’ll do that even if we’re reading our Bibles.

I’ve known several men that seemed to be bold, brave speakers. They knew the Scripture, and they weren’t afraid to stand up for God to anyone.

What was really true of them, however, was that they were terrified someone might see or point out their own faults, so they had become experts at jabbing, poking, and stinging others with the Scriptures in order to keep them at a distance.

Oh, what righteous men they appeared to be! Jesus, however, would have pointed his finger at them the same way he pointed his finger at the Pharisees.

There’s no saving such men. You can rebuke them, point out their hypocrisy, then leave them be. Chances are, they’ll never repent.

But you …

You can repent. You can do what’s right. You don’t have to fall into the same hypocrisy.

And don’t fool yourself; you will.

Unless you submit to the righteousness of God.

Pursue a relationship with God. You can always fool a book, even if that book is Scripture.

You can’t fool God. God has something for you to work on today. He knows. He knows what you’re hiding. He knows how hard or not hard it is for you. He knows when to put his finger on your faults, and he has the ability to give you the grace to overcome them.

When the Scripture speaks, it’s possible that you might miss it. It’s possible that you won’t even catch what was said. It’s also possible that even after you catch it, you’ll find it impossible to follow through.

But when God speaks?

When God speaks, you may ignore it, but you won’t miss it. It’ll drop in your heart, touch your conscience, and you will be forced to struggle and wrestle with that word and grow and live, or you will ignore it and slowly die a spiritual death. God won’t say another word until you deal with that one.

And when you deal with it, you will live. As horribly hard as it might be, it will be within your grasp. You will feel the smile and pleasure of God with each step forward even as you struggle.

How many people are sidelined, reading the Bible, looking for their own righteousness, all the while ignoring the last thing God said to them. They’ve been without the presence of God for days or even years. They’re worn out, exhausted, powerless, and unable to find anything in the Scriptures that will set them free.

If you’re one of those, it’s time to look up and ask God, "What was that you said to me?"

A Picture of Righteousness

Aargh, I hate adding one more thing. I’m scared you’ll lose what was already said.

Most of us have a picture of what it means to be a real man or woman of God.

That picture’s wrong.

Crush it. Throw it away. It’s an idol.

Only God knows what it means for you to be a man or woman of God.

Your picture will get in his way.

I’d try to explain it to you, but there’s no way to do that. If you have a confidently held picture of what real righteousness looks like, then you’re hopelessly off the track. I can’t tear that picture down for you; God will have to do that. And he will, if you’re a follower of the Spirit of God rather than a man who pats himself on the back with the Scriptures.

The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruit, without partiality, and without pretense. (James 3:17)

Posted in Holiness | Tagged , , | 1 Comment