Pleading for Sin and Pleading for Righteousness

Posted on 03/16/2011 by Paul Pavao

A friend mentioned I hadn’t posted in nearly a month. I’ve been working on my book about the Council of Nicea. 10 chapters done, 1 chapter to write, and 9 to edit. I also have to edit the glossaries. I hope to have it done within a month. It will be about 400 pages long, and there’s a lot of unique information.

It also does what I’m always trying to do with Christian History for Everyman: tell you stories to educate, entertain, and pique your interest, then put the sources in your hand so you can be an expert, too.

But I don’t want to completely neglect the blog.

Today I read in Jeremiah 23:14 about shepherds who “strengthen the hands of evildoers” (Holman Christian Standard Bible).

It made me think of George Fox, founder of the Quakers, who said complained about preachers who would “plead for sin.”

The purpose of the Scriptures, according to Paul in 2 Tim. 3:17, is to thoroughly equip us for every good work. That’s great; there’s a pattern there because that’s the purpose of the new birth, too (Eph. 2:10).

How much preaching today, however, ‘strengthens the hands of evildoers’ by explaining why we can’t stop sinning and why works don’t matter?

Jesus’ blood does provide forgiveness of sin and access to the throne room of God. But aren’t we entering the throne room of God specifically to access the grace that teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts (Tit. 2:11-12), that causes sin to lose its power over us (Rom. 6:14), and that makes us zealous for good works (Tit. 2:14).

Admittedly, we all “stumble in many ways” (Jam. 3:2). All the more reason, then, that we don’t need help in stumbling!!! Let us plead for righteousness, considering how to provoke one another to love and good works.

Consider Strengthening the Hands of Well-Doers

Rather than strengthening the hands of evil-doers, let’s strengthen the hands of well-doers, for it is only those who do not grow weary in well-doing who will reap eternal life (Gal. 6:9). All cowards, liars, adulterers, and such have their part in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8).

My daughter likes to tell me she’s bored every now and then so I can throw out suggestions about things she can do. Recently she reminded me that I once told her, “Why don’t you sit on the couch and stare at the wall.”

I have a new suggestion for those with time on their hands, bored or not.

Consider.

Doesn’t the command to consider suggest that we should be stopping and thinking? Maybe sitting on the couch and staring at the wall isn’t such a bad idea.

And what are we to consider?

How to provoke one another to love and good works.

Let’s be those who strengthen the hands of well-doers and who frighten evil-doers the way God wants to (1 Pet. 1:17).

Posted in Holiness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Three Most Important Chapters in the Bible

Posted on 02/19/2011 by Paul Pavao

A friend of mine likes to say, “Salvation is not a plan, it’s a man.”

Our faith is not to be in something Jesus has done, but in Jesus himself, the Savior of the world.

But what does it mean to have faith in Jesus Christ?

Faith and Obedience

Jesus once said:

Whoever hears these sayings of mine and does them, I will compare him to a wise man who built his house upon a rock. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, and it didn’t fall because it was built upon a rock. (Matt. 7:24-25)

Apparently, Jesus—the one in whom we are to have faith—thinks that having faith in him is listening to and obeying what he has to say.

Corroborating Jesus

Now I know we shouldn’t have to corroborate the words of Jesus. He is, after all, the Lord and Creator of everything and everyone.

But since Christians today seem to prefer other voices than that of the great Shepherd of the Sheep himself—Jesus doesn’t always seem to grasp or agree with our ideas about faith alone—let me point out that the writer of Hebrews entirely concurs with Jesus.

He has become the author of eternal salvation to them that obey him. (Heb. 5:9)

To whom did he swear that they would not enter into his rest except to those that did not obey (Gr. apeitheo: to refuse to be persuaded or comply)? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief (Gr. apistia: unbelief). (Heb. 3:18-19)

And Paul warns us about people who would trick us into not believing that faith has nothing to do with obedience to Christ:

For you know this: No sexually immoral or unclean person, nor a greedy man—who is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Don’t let anyone deceive you with empty sayings, for it’s because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. So don’t be their companions in crime. (Eph. 5:5-6)

In fact, so does the apostle John:

Little children, don’t let anyone deceive you. The one that does righteousness is righteous, just as he is righteous. (1 Jn. 3:7)

Jesus Speaks on Obedience Again

Jesus makes his concern about obedience even more clear a few verses before his comment about who is building his house on a solid foundation:

Not everyone who says to me “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father in heaven. (Matt. 7:21)

So Jesus is concerned about obedience. To Jesus, faith is obedience.

But what does he want us to obey?

The Three Most Important Chapters in the Bible

Both passages from Matthew (above) are part of the Sermon on the Mount. Chapters five, six, and seven of the Gospel of Matthew are about the most concise description of how God wants you to live that you could ever hope for.

You could spend the rest of your life living out those three chapters and learning what they mean by obedience to them.

And according to Jesus, you’d be wise if you did.

Posted in Gospel, Holiness, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

I repent …

Posted on 02/12/2011 by Paul Pavao

… for ever thinking that God cares about cussing.

Don’t get me wrong. There are more important things for me to repent for, and I’m doing that the best I know how. And cussing is childish, inconsiderate, and indicates either low intelligence or being too lazy to use intelligence. I do not recommend it.

But I’ll be damned if I’m ever going to return to being a Pharisee, making moral mountains out of the minutiae of human behavior.

I mean that literally … the "damned" part, I mean.

After all, Jesus was pretty condemning with the Pharisees 2,000 years ago.

Why?

I could find Scriptures to back up what I’m saying, and, in fact, Jesus’ statement that we’re to be concerned with the weightier matters of the Law—judgment, mercy, and faith—has a lot to do with this post.

Further, the people that Jesus hung out with have a lot to do with this post.

Further, the treatment Jesus gave the good, line-toeing, religious people have a lot to do with this post.

But mostly, a particular wasp on Facebook stirred up this post. By wasp, I don’t mean a white, anglo-saxon Protestant, though he is one. I mean an insect that delivers painful stings and devours other insects without producing any honey.

What?

Christmas, Easter, the King James Version, evolution, gambling, smoking, homosexuality and every other "don’t touch, don’t taste, don’t handle" that we’ve aggrandized so that there’s no way to even discuss them.

I thought about leaving this section just that one paragraph long, but I probably owe you at least a little explanation.

Smoking’s bad. It will kill you. It’s wrong for a disciple. Why shorten your time on earth at your own hand? It’s a version of suicide … no, murder by your own lusts. It ought to make the victim mad.

But, do we really need to tell a person that they can’t be baptized until they quit smoking? Are we basing that on Scripture, or are we basing that on the Surgeon General’s report?

You know the answer. We’re not basing it on either. We’re basing it on conservative American culture. It’s the bad guy in America, so it’s the bad guy in the church.

I don’t believe for a minute that our powers of scriptural interpretation are so bad that we would believe that 1 Cor. 3:16-17 refers to our physical body unless we were simply sold on American prejudices. God’s not going to just destroy anyone that happens to do things destructive to their bodies. His concern is Jesus’ body. Your body isn’t the temple of God; Jesus’ body is. As long as you are joined to Jesus’ body, you can defile that body by joining yourself to a harlot (1 Cor. 6:15). And there our bodies are called members, to the temple of God. In 1 Cor. 3, where our body, singular, is called the temple of God, all the yous are plural.

Mess with the church, and God will destroy you.

Smoke? Then he may have mercy because 1 Cor. 3:16-17 has nothing to do with smoking or overeating.

Homosexuality? God will condemn homosexuals, just like he will condemn adulterers and the heterosexually promiscuous.

But he will not condemn them as harshly as he will condemn those with a Pharisaical attitude, who ignore their own sins while harshly denouncing homosexuals as though that were the worst plague that’s ever hit the earth.

And holidays? Heavens to Betsy! This guy on Facebook poured out the most unloving, embarrassing batch of insults and invective on some lady who presented an argument against his anti-holiday logorrhea (love that word!). I understand the arguments against "pagan" holidays like Christmas and Easter, but I have yet to see God back up that argument or for there to be the slightest bit of good fruit from it.

Missing the Boat

We Americans think that righteousness involves "I don’t smoke, drink, cuss, or chew, nor hang around with those that do."

Jesus hung around with those that do as preferred company.

Something about the way he was made them want to hang around him.

It’s true that bad company corrupts good morals (1 Cor. 15:33). It’s also true that a guy who smokes and cusses may not be bad company. Pharisees may be bad company. Bad company is a person that moves you to be less like Christ. Don’t follow your buddy down to the strip joint while pretending that you’re doing what Jesus did. Sinners got righteous around Jesus.

But they didn’t become Pharisees.

Last Word

There is a point to all this.

Jesus wants people who can hear God, see into people’s hearts, control their temper, speak out of love, care all the time about people, and care little about this world.

Rooting out the great public corruption of public smoking, proving that we’re too pure to listen to a sinner cuss, and bringing the government down on the head of immoral non-Christians is hardly on God’s priority list.

Judgment, he says, begins in his house.

Posted in Holiness, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Book Teaser: The Council of Nicea and the Trinity

Posted on 02/11/2011 by Paul Pavao

I’m off by myself for another couple days working on a book on the Council of Nicea. I have no working title for it at the moment.

I’ve hit a point where I think if I show you a couple excerpts, I might be able to pique your interest. So here goes.

If any of the following seems somewhat abrupt, there’s two reasons. Some of this is still in rough draft form, and I have left paragraphs out for brevity:

At the heart of the Nicene Creed is the threefold statement of belief:

We believe in one God, the Father … and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God … also in the Holy Spirit.

That is the basic outline. The rest of the creed is explanatory.

Notice that the one God, according to the Nicene Creed, is the Father. Jesus is the one Lord and the Son of God, and nothing at all is said about the Holy Spirit except that he exists.

We all know that the Bible occasionally applies the title “God” to the Father only. In fact, 1 Corinthians 8:6 says it in almost the exact same words as the Nicene Creed:

But for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

The issue is really not whether modern Christians are okay with the way the New Testament writings talk about God.

The question is whether we would dare use the same terminology.

I believe that if we’re honest with ourselves, we have to admit that we have adopted a view of the Trinity that is different from Nicea. We would never write a creed that says, “We believe in one God, the Father, and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit.” That simply is not the terminology we would use.

Instead, we would use something closer to what is known as the Athanasian Creed, which Athanasius did not write, but dates to somewhere around the end of his life in A.D. 360. I am quoting just portions of it here because it is quite long. You can read the whole creed at Christian History for Everyman.

We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity …
The Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty
Yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God
Yet there are not three Gods, but one God

No wonder the Trinity is so confusing to people! Is this anything like the wonderfully clear explanations of the pre-Nicene Christians that we’ve been reading about?

In the book here, there is a list of statements on the Trinity from the five largest Christian denominations in the USA, including the Roman Catholics; all of which use Athanasian Creed terminology and not Nicene terminology.

But what is normative? Finding one verse and pointing out the Nicene Creed is nice, but was this the way the early Christians and, more importantly, the apostles spoke on a regular basis?

Let’s find out.

First, though, I’d like to point out the explanation that Tertullian, writing around A.D. 210, gives for the terminology that’s in the Nicene Creed (though, of course, he’s not referring to the Nicene Creed itself, which wouldn’t be written for over a century).

I shall follow the apostle [Paul], so that if the Father and the Son are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father “God” and invoke Jesus Christ as “Lord.”
     But when Christ alone [is invoked], I shall be able to call him “God.” As the same apostle says, “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever” [Rom. 9:5].
     For I should give the name of “sun” even to a sunbeam, considered by itself. But if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I would certainly withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I do not make two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things—and two forms of one undivided substance—as God and his Word, as the Father and the Son. (Against Praxeas 13).

Tertullian seems to think Nicene terminology is normative. He seems to think that the apostles, or at least the apostle Paul, only called Jesus God when the Father is not being discussed along with him. Is this true?

If you’re familiar with the Scriptures, you probably don’t need me to tell you it’s true. You already know. But let’s give you some statistics:

  • The Father is referred to as God in a verse where Jesus is also mentioned 42 times.
  • Jesus is referred to as God in a verse where the Father is also mentioned 0 times.
  • God is used in such a way as to clearly indicate a reference to all three persons of the Trinity 0 times.
  • Jesus is called God in a verse where the Father is not mentioned at least 7 times. There are several others that are subject to interpretation.

Now I’m going to complain here a little bit because I believe I’m rightfully angry.

In all the studies of the Trinity that have been published since the printing press has been invented, is it really true that no one has noticed these things? While scholars and historians were publishing careful definitions of hypostasis and ousios, did they really not notice that the Nicene Creed calls the Father the one God and we don’t? Did they really never run across Tertullian’s explanation of the reason for that?

I can’t help but feel that never publishing Tertullian’s explanation of when to call Jesus God while repeatedly mentioning that Tertullian was the first early Christian writer to use the term Trinity is, well, dishonest. Worse, it’s larceny! We have been robbed of a closer, easier relationship with the Scriptures and a better understanding of God, within the context he’s been revealed to us! We’re not overstepping our bounds in understanding God more fully this way; instead, we are holding more closely to "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

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

What Are the Implications of an Old Earth for Christians?

Posted on 02/09/2011 by Paul Pavao

I wrote an email tonight that I just have to put on this blog. There are things I really like saying, and this is one of them.

I wrote the email in response to the following question:

What are the implications concerning Old Earth vs. New Earth? What is all the arguing really about?

To me? One thing. Is our faith based on a real God who gives us a real Spirit, and are we following a being, Jesus Christ the Son of God, who really is the Truth?

If we are, then we can pursue truth. We can look at scientific evidence honestly, knowing that our God is Creator no matter what we find in the scientific evidence.

Or, is our faith based upon stories we read in a book? Sure, I agree the Bible is inspired. But I don’t believe in Jesus because of the Bible. I believe the Bible because I believe in Jesus.

Jesus is God. The Bible has some of the things–not even a very large portion of the things–God has said. I don’t believe God wants us to have faith in a book. It’s not even a book, anyway. It’s letters, poetry, and a few short books–many writings. We didn’t collect them into one until much later.

Jesus didn’t leave us a book. He left us apostles, and he left us a church that the apostles’ writings say is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

When the church was being deceived, what did the apostles tell them to do? Paul told them to talk to each other, speaking the truth to one another … in love (Eph. 4:13-16). John told them that together (he used a plural “you” consistently) they would be taught by “the anointing” (1 Jn. 2:26-27).

The Roman Catholic Church wants us to believe that they are the church Paul speaks of that is the pillar and support of the truth. That’s false. The church that the Scriptures know about is the local church. You, your husband, and those who will follow Christ with you. The apostles say that together you, the church in your town, can seek God and be led by him into truth as you follow the anointing and speak the truth in love to one another.

Those whose faith is in the book, rather than in God, end up having to defend the book. We who place our faith in God find that God can defend himself! Rather than defending him, we depend on him to defend us!

I believe it is for this reason that Jesus, the Word of God, didn’t give us a book to be the Word of God. Yes, the Bible is the Word of God, but it’s only a small portion of the Word of God. Surely we don’t believe God’s words are limited to a thousand pages in all of history! Surely we don’t believe he’s been sitting around silent for 2,000 years! I believe he likes us, and he likes to talk to us and guide us.

“I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will guide you with my eye” (Ps. 32:8).

“As many as are led by the Spirit, these are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14).

(Caveat: I’m not talking about me being led by the Spirit. I’m talking about us, the local church, being led by the Spirit. Here, locally, we follow God together, and I let my brothers and sisters speak to me from the Scriptures and from their own revelation to keep me from being deceived. We test the Spirits by the Scriptures. God won’t say something different–at least not significantly different, though there may be some minor cultural things–to us than he did to the apostles.)

Ok, one more thing. We have to look at the flip side of this. What did Jesus think of those who put all their trust in “the Book”:

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you will find life, but these are they which testify of me! Yet you refuse to come to me so that you may have life” (Jn. 5:39-40).

Beware of modern Pharisees, who tell you that if the Scriptures turn out to be allegorical in some places, or to have scientific errors in another, then you can’t believe the Gospel. That’s ludicrous!

We can believe the Gospel because of its power! Jesus sent the apostles out to be witnesses of the resurrection, so that people would gather together and come to him. He is able to teach his people. Yes, he used the apostles to do some of that teaching, but do you notice in Acts how quickly Paul was willing to leave towns in which he had preached? In Acts 14, we read about him returning to some of those towns, in which he’d spent sometimes only three weeks or so, and appointing elders.

Who trained those elders? I would argue that it was the Spirit of God in the church.

The Scriptures are profitable for instruction in righteousness. They are profitable for correction, reproof, and rebuke. You will notice that all those things concern behavior a lot more than they concern theology. That’s because the point of the Scriptures is to thoroughly equip us for good works, not to make theologians out of us (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

In Titus 2:1, Paul tells Titus to teach “sound doctrine.” Look at the rest of the chapter some time and see what Paul considered to be sound doctrine.

Doesn’t sound much like a modern statement of faith, does it?

Christians desperately need to return to being practical, holy people. On the last day, Jesus doesn’t have a quiz about theology–not even about the atonement. He tells us about whether we fed him when he was hungry, clothed him when he was naked, or visited him when he was sick or in prison.

You want a real shocker? Look in the Book of Acts and find one place where an apostle told a lost person that Jesus died for their sins.

You’ll find where they told the lost that Jesus died. They had to. They were witnesses of the resurrection. You can’t witness of a resurrection if you don’t mention a death.

You’ll find where they said that Jesus forgives sins, but you will never find them tying the two together.

That’s not because it’s false. It is very true and very important that Jesus died for our sins. It’s all over the letters … to the church.

The lost, however, don’t need to know that to be saved.

We’re so confused into thinking that Jesus saves us because of what we know! That’s so unscriptural! He saves us because we want to repent of our sin–in fact, of our whole pointless lives–and follow him! He saves all his followers, which is what having faith in a person means.

We have to talk about “real” faith because we think faith means having faith in some facts about Jesus. If we realized that faith is in a (divine) person, Jesus Christ, and not in some things that he did, then we wouldn’t have to talk about “real” faith. Everyone already knows that you can’t claim to have faith in a person and ignore what he says.

Again, don’t miss what’s in Acts. The apostles never told the lost that Jesus died for their sins. They explained the atonement later, to the church, so that the church could understand the incredible thing that Jesus did for us and praise him and love him more than ever.

We don’t have the fragile faith that Ken Ham preaches. We have a vigorous real faith that comes from having the Spirit of God living in us, which we received through faith in Jesus Christ, the glorious, knowable, real, and living Son of God!

Evolution can’t shake that faith. If evolution is true, then our great God and his great Son did it. If it isn’t, then maybe Genesis 1 is absolutely literal.

Either way, we’re busy learning the proper lessons we should learn from Genesis 1. We want to be a full moon, reflecting as much of the light of the Son as possible in the darkness of the night, until Jesus returns and daylight reigns again. We believe and know that whether Genesis 1 is a literal description or an allegorical one full of spiritual lessons, either way it was our mighty God who created the universe, strewing between a sextillion and an octillion stars across 14.7 billion light years of space.

Wow.

That, to me, is what the argument is about. I am not arguing that evolution is true, even though I’m arguing that evolution is true. I’m arguing that we have to be honest, and I’m arguing that we have to be united, holy, obedient believers in Jesus Christ, not divided, pharisaical defenders of our own particular interpretations of the small portion of God’s words that have been written down.

I hope I haven’t over-spoken nor offended you too much.

I really love our God, and I believe he’s way stronger than our ideas. He can take care of us even while we enjoy searching out the truth. Those who seek find. He doesn’t give snakes to children who ask for eggs. Let us not be “ye of little faith,” but let us address him as Father and trust him as children.

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

Early Christianity, Organic Christianity, and the Rise of the Catholic Church

Posted on 02/09/2011 by Paul Pavao

This post will probably only interest you if you’re a friend of mine and like listening to me already, or if you have an avid interest in early Christianity and how the church became the miserable mess that it became in the middle ages.

This is very general, though I mention some details in establishing that general idea.

This is a response to a question from a friend of mine to whom I probably have no business giving advice, even though he’s younger than me. But, hey, we’re brothers and friends, so God gives me opportunities to be of benefit even to those who might be running ahead of me.

Organic Church, House Churches, and the Early Church

The question was concerning some history passed on by someone in a church planting ministry. The history they passed on was miserably inaccurate in its details, but it’s point was exactly accurate.

I could say more, but I explain all that in the email. Here it is …

My Email on Early Christianity and the Fall of the Church

If anything below needs to be explained, just ask in the comments! I’ll be notified by email, and I’ll answer pretty quickly.

I’m not giving you the original claims by this church-planting group because I don’t think it’s necessary to understand my response.

Poor Ignatius (bishop of Antioch, c. A.D. 70 – 110) had to face gnostics in the church in an empire with no public school system. What that means is that it was typical for philosophers to simply open their schools and try to earn a living teaching people math, science … and philosophy or religion.

So let’s say you’re Ignatius. You’ve got “Christians” in your church saying the right things (or saying nothing) at the assemblies, but then going off to teach gnostic nonsense in their house or in a school on the street. Your precious sheep are being taken in by these charlatans.

Ignatius chose to tell them, “Stick with the bishop. Don’t do baptisms without the bishop, and don’t hold a Lord’s supper without his knowledge.”

We can complain about his solution, but that’s the only legitimate complaint we can make against that great man of God. It’s crazy to charge him with failing to discipline a local body to keep it pure. He fought his guts out to get the gnostics out of the church, and his letters are full of statements that a person is only a Christian if he lives it.

It is better for a man to be silent and be [a Christian], than to talk and not be one. It is good to teach, if he who speaks also acts. … There is nothing that is hidden from God. Our very secrets are near to him. Therefore, let us do everything as those who have him dwelling in us. (Letter to the Ephesians 15)

You have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions ye enjoin [on others]. Only pray both inward and outward strength for me, so that I may not only speak, but also be willing; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. For if I be truly found [a Christian], I may also be called one, and be then deemed faithful. (Letter to the Romans 3)

Hardly a guy who justified godlessness.

Real history goes like this. In the 2nd century , the church was so doggone powerful that it grew rapidly, despite poverty, slander, and persecution. Truly, their blood was seed, and that includes Ignatius’ blood.

In the 3rd century, the church was large enough that in many places they were known. Persecution was very limited. They were respected in some places. They had some size. Some leaders were leaders for the glory it gave them, and each person’s “place” was emphasized more than ever. There was more fighting about doctrine, more worldliness, and a lot more people pew sitting (though they may not have had pews).

The real disaster didn’t come until Constantine, though. And it’s not because he gave authority to the bishop of Rome. He didn’t do that, nor did the Council of Nicea. The disaster was because he embraced Christianity as honestly as he knew how. The problem was not that he was fake; the problem was that he was sincere.

Suddenly, the church was filled with most of the Roman populace, unconverted in any spiritual sense, and the devil sent Arius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Nicomedia to focus the church on doctrine. Suddenly, everyone cared whether you had to say that the Son was “same substance as the Father,” but no one seemed to care that Christians were killing each other with their bare hands!!!

Unbelievable.

Irenaeus was a 2nd century missionary to the Gauls. He was awesome. Cyprian was a mid-3rd-century bishop of Carthage who actually called a council to oppose the Roman bishop on the baptism of heretics. Stephen of Rome was claiming the right to decide on that issue, at least for the bishops in his area: Italy, Gaul, and north Africa (including Cyprian’s Carthage). The Council of Carthage, led by Cyprian, determined that no bishop had the right to call himself a bishop of other bishops. (This council is not quoted by Catholics for some reason, even though it’s in The Ante-Nicene Fathers set, and everyone knows about it.)

The authoritarian Roman structure was not imposed by the bishop of Rome, by the way. That simply happened. The 3rd century churches were already too top-heavy, and Christians were already failing to use their gifts as one body with many equally important members. When the emperor converted and everyone come flocking in, they wanted the Roman government structure to function in the church as well.

After that, yes, new churches had a political culture rather than a Scriptural authority, but there’s no sense blaming the pope for that. He’s a product of the problem, not a cause.

Of course, the end of all this is that real history still backs up the organic church model. I wish we’d quit slandering great men like Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian, but it’s nonetheless true that the early churches were not led by foreign missionaries. They were, in that sense, indigenous. Their leaders knew about every member using their gift.

And the fact is, while it’s not Cyprian’s fault, that did all get forgotten, and the church became political and forgot that Jesus said about the authority of the Gentiles, “It shall not be so among you.”

Posted in History, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Jesus Never Claimed To Be God

Posted on 02/05/2011 by Paul Pavao

Have you ever had someone tell you that Jesus never claimed to be God or the Son of God?

I was a part of the fledgling New Age Movement as a teenager and young adult in the 70’s and early 80’s. The New Age Movement loves to claim Jesus as its own, but it can’t have Jesus teaching the things he teaches. The New Age is all about feeling good and living for yourself. Staying married, denying yourself, or changing in any way so that you might benefit others is an abridgment on New Age freedom and enlightenment.

The New Age is sort of like the far left in politics. Its adherents simply invent their own reality and live in a dream world all the time. That way, they feel really good about themselves and even believe they’ve transformed the world, while never having actually met or touched the people they talk about helping.

Actually, I guess they’re also like many (most?) Christians, who say glowing, worshipful things about the Bible, but who don’t actually read it, do what it says, or even believe the things it teaches.

Okay, I’m off track. (And to think I did so well being brief in my last post.)

The Outrageous Claims of Jesus

Despite what I was told in the New Age Movement, Jesus most certainly did claim to be the Son of God (Matt. 26:63-64; Luk. 22:70; Jn. 3:18; 5:25; 9:35; 10:36; etc.). Yes, the apostles taught that we could all be sons of God, but it was Jesus alone who could say, "Before Abraham was, I am" (Jn. 8:58).

It’s not the words, "I am the Son of God," that make Jesus’ claims stand out. It’s everything else!

It’s not the rest of us who can say, "I saw satan falling from heaven like lightning" (Luke 10:18). We hear about it from Jesus, who has existed since before the beginning.

He’s the one for whose coming we wait, and he’s the one who will sit down on his glorious throne and judge the nations (Luke 17:24-25; Matt. 25:31-46). He’s also the one who will call the dead out of the graves (Jn. 5:25-29). Now that’s an audacious claim!

But today I want to talk about the simply implied claim I was reading about in Matthew 10.

Matthew 10 and the Implied Claim of Jesus

Picture this scenario. You’re a Jew; you are listening to a man expound the Law of Moses, the greatest of the prophets, and towards the end of his exposition, he says the following:

The person who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; the person who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And whoever doesn’t take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of me. Anyone finding his life will lose it, and anyone losing his life because of Me will find it. (Matt. 10:37-39, Holman Christian Standard Bible)

The HCSB capitalizes "Me" in this passage, but those who were listening to him, even though they were apostles, did not yet know that pronouns referring to him ought to be capitalized. (Actually, I don’t even agree with that; let’s honor him with our obedience, not by adjusting our grammar.) Statements like these had to take the apostles’ collective breath away!

The crowds had wondered who he was just because there was so much authority in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:28-29). This passage from Matthew 10 is only directed at his disciples, but what a statement!

I’m more important than your parents, and if you love them more than me, then you’re not worthy of me?

What???

Jesus had better be more than just one of many sons of God if he’s going to be making statements like these!

The Foolishness of Preaching Christ

Let’s forget about New Agers. We’ve addressed some Scriptures to answer them with. People who live in a fantasy world are always easy to answer.

But what about us?

Do we know what religion we’ve joined and what religious leader we’ve chosen to follow?

We’re making some outrageous claims. Jesus rose from the dead? He created the universe? Somewhere around an octillion stars (a number so big that WordPress’ spellchecker doesn’t recognize it!) spread across 14 billion light years of space? 14 billion light years is 5.88 trillion miles … times 14 billion, or 82 sextillion miles.

Jesus, if we believe what we teach, lived a highly supernatural life, and he sent his apostles to live a highly supernatural life. In Matthew 10, he sent his disciples to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons.

Have you ever thought about those people knocking at Jesus’ door on the last day, asking to be let into the kingdom? Jesus said many would tell him that they prophesied, cast out demons, and did miracles in his name.

He’s not going to let them in because it’s not faith that matters on the last day, but what your faith accomplished: good works. So they are kept out because they didn’t obey the Father but were lawless instead (Matt. 7:21-23).

But despite the fact that they were locked out of the kingdom, the King—Jesus—doesn’t deny that they performed these supernatural feats. If we’re going to be Bible believers, then we have to acknowledge that miracles are a somewhat normal part of the Bible’s picture of the Christian life.

Does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the Law or by hearing with faith? (Gal. 3:5)
CAVEAT: I’ve been a part of the Word/Faith (or ambition/greed) movement. I’ve seen the awful, embarrassing behavior of lots of people pursuing God for their own gain and pursuing miracles like late-night, psychic-TV watchers. According to Jesus in Mark 16, miracles follow the preaching of the Word, not vice versa. We pursue Christ, not miracles.

But for those who pursue Christ with a white-hot diligence (Rom. 12:10), miracles are not an unusual part of life.

We’re making outrageous claims. We had better have outrageous power.

One Final Caveat and One Final Plea

Matthew 13:58 says that Jesus couldn’t do many miracles in his own country because of their unbelief.

In the history of the world, there has never been a more unbelieving culture than modern western society, primarily the US, Canada, and western Europe. Miracles are limited here.

I’ve spent a relatively significant amount of time in 3rd world countries, and I’ve had good friends raised in countries like Kenya, Nigeria, Surinam, India, and Togo. Miracles are not so uncommon there. I know atheists would believe they’re just confused or inventing the stories, but I’ve been too close to too many absolutely stunning events to disbelieve so easily. While I’ve personally witnessed only a few of those events, I’ve spoken firsthand with literally dozens of people who have recounted amazing miraculous occurrences.

In fact, one of South Africa’s national rugby players was healed of a knee injury by a faith healer from Nigeria. That was a public event, and there are videos of it on the internet.

I’m not giving a plug for the prophet who healed him. Obviously, if we believe in Jesus, some miracle workers are lawless; Jesus said so in Matt. 7:21-23. I don’t know anything about T.B. Joshua.

But we’re not in Nigeria. We’re in America, a breeding nest for venomous unbelief.

But just because America’s full of unbelief doesn’t mean we who are Jesus followers should be. Let’s give some actual thought to whom (Whom) exactly we’re following.

Posted in Bible, Miscellaneous, prayer | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Do You Believe in the Church

Posted on 02/02/2011 by Paul Pavao

Five hundred years ago Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin led Europe in rejecting the Roman Catholic Church and its pope as the mouth of God.

Note that Luther and Calvin did not choose to leave the Catholic Church (although Zwingli, if I remember correctly, did). Luther was horrified at the sale of indulgences, in which the pope’s salesmen threatened dead Catholics with torture from God if they didn’t give money to build St. Peter’s Basilica. All 95 of Luther’s 95 Theses were directed against the sale of indulgences, and the rejection of the doctrine of indulgences was what led to Luther being ejected from the Roman church at the Diet of Worms in 1521.

The problem is, the result has been that Protestants reject any church as being the mouth of God.

The Church and the Promises of God

There are some amazing promises to the church in the Bible.

  • The church is called "the pillar and support of the truth" in 1 Tim. 3:15
  • The church is called "the fullness of him that fills all in all" in Eph. 1:23
  • In 1 Jn. 2:26-27, the church is promised to be protected from deception and led into truth if they will follow the anointing.
  • In Eph. 4:11-16, we are told that the church will be protected from deception and that its members will grow into the fullness of Christ together if they will speak the truth to one another in love.

Don’t those things seem important?

Isn’t "important" an understatement?

Believing

Maybe you could look at those promises again.

Do you believe them? If you do, shouldn’t you do something about them?

Which Church?

I want to suggest that the church that receives and experiences those promises is the only church the Scripture and the apostles know anything about: the local church.

Christians called out of the world and gathered together into a new family in Christ.

Most Christians today don’t want to participate in that church. They just want to attend meetings at their local Christian club.

Jesus promised to be in the midst of any two or three who are gathered in his name. Doesn’t it make sense that those two or three would then have access to all the above promises?

(Keep in mind that Eph. 4:11-16 talks about apostles, shepherds, and other ministers teaching the saints how to take advantage of those promises and build one another up. It can start with 2 or 3, but there is growth needed to walk in the fullness of those promises.)

Practical Application

If you can be attached to believers that are not trapped in tradition, but can be led by the Holy Spirit and by the Scriptures away from deception and into truth, then there’s an important application to consider.

That application is that you would not trust yourself, because you alone are prone to being deceived (Heb. 3:13), and that you would walk together with your brothers and sisters, who are the pillar and support of the truth.

Scary, huh?

But do you believe what the Bible says about the church? Do you believe that it’s Christ’s body? Do you believe that the head can control the body? Or do you believe instead that Jesus is quadriplegic?

Then in the church, you’re going to have to learn to think, "They’re right; I’m wrong."

Posted in Church | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Final Judgments and False Gospels: A Comment

Posted on 01/31/2011 by Paul Pavao

This is an additional thought on that heretical false gospel displayed in the godtube video in my last post.

Note that in the video, the Christian is the worst of all the people there. What will a non-Christian conclude from watching that video? He can conclude only one thing, which is that Jesus has to ignore sin because he doesn’t have the power to deliver us from sin.

We are so careful to avoid a holier-than-thou attitude or saying that we are better than non-Christians.

Did Christ make you better? Did he change your life? Did he make you more righteous in your behavior?

If he didn’t, then you’ve never met him because that’s what he does.

If he did, then Christians are holier than non-Christians, and we are better than non-Christians. They need to know that! We’re not trying to prove we’re wonderful; we’re trying to let non-Christians have some idea that Jesus actually has the power to help them!!!

That godtube video is embarrassing to me and insulting to Jesus.

I wish y’all would go over there and leave them some sensible comments. I’m writing this several days before it goes up on my blog, but as of today I’m unable to leave a comment there. Some technical glitch on my computer or their site.

Posted in Gospel, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Final Judgments and False Gospels

Posted on 01/29/2011 by Paul Pavao

Will the judgment be like many modern Christians describe it?

Or will it be like Jesus describes it?

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. Before him, all the nations will be gathered, and he shall separate them from one another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Then the King will say to the ones on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father; inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me food; I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in, naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty, and give you something to drink? When did we see you as a stranger and take you in? Or naked and clothe you? Or when did we see you sick or in prison and come to you?

And the King shall answer and and tell them, "Truly I tell you, when you have done it to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you have done it to me."

Then he will tell those at his left, "Depart from me, you cursed ones, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me no food; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink;
I was a stranger, and you did not take me in; naked, and you did not clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit me.

Then they too will answer him, saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick, or in prison, and did not serve you?"

Then he will answer them, saying, "Truly I tell you, when you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me."

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

I ask you, could there be a greater difference between the two descriptions?

In one, kindness and compassion don’t matter at all. In the other, they’re the only things that matter.

Heresy?

When we come up a with a doctrine that produces that much difference with Jesus, should we not consider it heresy?

Is it possible that our modern teachings about the atonement and salvation are false gospels? (Actually, it’s not possible; we’ve just seen that it’s certain.)

Or would we rather go on thinking that Jesus didn’t know what he was talking about?

Posted in Gospel, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments