Free Chapters of My Book: The Council of Nicea

Posted on 03/22/2011 by Paul Pavao

I posted earlier today, too, with more content :-D.

If you read my blog, you probably know that I’ve been working on a book about the Council of Nicea. My writing part is done. All I’m doing now is formatting.

I’m having trouble picking a title, so this blog post is for two reasons:

  • You can read four chapters of the book for free. You can find the links at the Council of Nicea page at Christian History for Everyman.
  • After you’ve read those, I’m taking title suggestions! If I use yours, I’ll give a free, signed copy of the book (for whatever that’s worth) and a $25 gift certificate to amazon.com.

For the record, I’ve tried three titles so far:

  • Setting It Straight: An Honest Man’s Look at the Council of Nicea
  • Going the Wrong Way: An Honest Man’s Look at the Council of Nicea
  • In the Beginning Was the Logos: The Council of Nicea for Everyman

I’m not very good at title creating. Any help or feedback is really appreciated.

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

Can You Be Controlled?

Posted on 03/22/2011 by Paul Pavao

I wrote someone recently and told them that the best argument for some of the things I teach is Rose Creek Village. (Not that RCV does what I teach; I teach what RCV does.) I described “great power, great joy, and great satisfaction in God.”

Honestly, though, not everyone at Rose Creek Village believes that’s true.

I know a couple people, right here at our village, who would say that they can’t do anything because they can never get permission for the things that are on their heart. I always wonder if they live at the same place I do. In fact, I ask them, when I hear something like that, whether they live at the same place I do.

I’m talking about real personal stuff here, but it applies to all Christians.

The difference is not where we live or what we’re told. Those couple people and I have two major differences.

  • I don’t think I’ve been told no until I’ve been told no.
  • I’m willing to risk making people angry if I think I’m doing God’s will.

Maybe those both could be summed up in one statement: I care less what people think about me.

It’s not that I’m assertive by nature. All the psychological tests I’ve ever taken say that I’m extremely introverted. Growing up, I was shy and picked on all the time. I’m terrified to talk to strangers.

It bothers me greatly when people don’t like what I’m doing. When I say something controversial, and people don’t like it, I get nervous and jittery. It takes a great effort of will to choose to stand on a controversial truth.

But I do it.

I don’t feel like I have a choice. If I give up on a truth that comes from God, then I believe that God will give up on me. I get that from the verse where Jesus says that if we’re ashamed of him here, then he’ll be ashamed of us there.

So I don’t like it, but I do it anyway.

I’m a pretty good teacher, you know. I can be entertaining. I can say what people want to hear, and they’ll all pat me on the back when I’m done. Sometimes, when I lead a Bible study and I encourage everyone to talk, I’ll have people come up to me after and say, “I came to hear you talk, not them. You’re a lot more interesting. Do those others have to talk?”

I have a couple friends who are pastors. They became pastors by, well, lying. They said they agreed to a statement of faith that I know they don’t agree with, and they did so because they were told everyone does that. One of them told me, “You can’t repair a sinking ship from the outside.”

I can’t do that. I can’t do that at RCV, either. I’m at RCV because it’s the church. No, I don’t mean its the only church. I mean it’s the church. It’s people, gathered together for the purpose of following Jesus Christ.

So I listen to the church. When I say, “I think this,” and everyone disagrees with me, then I assume that the church is the pillar and support of the truth, not me. I yield.

But when everyone frowns, and says, “I don’t like it,” that doesn’t mean anything at all. I make them think about what they don’t like. If I think it’s God, then I go do what they don’t like. Maybe I’m wrong, and I try to pay attention to God putting a stop to me, or a brother running me down to say I’m sinning, but otherwise, I go on.

And if you’re trying to follow God, you’ll find that people don’t stop you. God has a way of moving everything out of the way, leaving the path open, and allowing you to blaze a trail …

… while everyone’s frowning at you.

Now, keep in mind, this only works for people who want God’s will. For those that are full of their own opinions and who have no fear of their own self-deceit, I just described a route to self-destruction, heresy, and destructive behavior towards the church that will result in God destroying you.

It’s good to be afraid.

But it’s good to be more afraid of God than you are of people.

That way, you won’t be confused into thinking that just because people frown at you a lot, they won’t give you permission to do anything. Get off your rear end and do something that you’re pretty sure God wants you to do!

Posted in Church, Leadership, Miscellaneous | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Picking the Winning Horse

Posted on 03/18/2011 by Paul Pavao

First, as a total aside, you have got to read about this bat that lets any scorpion sting it in the face.

God’s creation is marvelous, isn’t it?

A Whole Thesaurus of Bad Manners

I’ve been watching a couple Rob Bell videos tonight. One in particular was an interview conducted by an obnoxious host who either didn’t care about or couldn’t tell the difference between a hard question and a petulant one.

For example, one question was concerning Japan. “Is God all-powerful but not loving, or is he loving but not powerful enough to prevent this disaster.”

Asking once was okay. This was a terrible disaster. Rob Bell gave a somewhat evasive answer; after all, it’s hard to explain why God lets the world be the way the world is.

I’m pretty sure from the rest of the interview that the interviewer thought he was being pointed rather than fatuous when he repeated the question. I thought, there’s two answers to the man’s question:

  1. God is both all-powerful and loving. Disasters cause us to question this, but God is also far greater than we are, and the universe and life are really difficult for humans to understand. There are several speculations we could give for why disasters happen, but they’d just be speculations. The fact is, some things are still mysteries to humans.
  2. God is both all-powerful and loving, but you’re too stupid to understand it.

That might give him a taste for the difference between being straightforward and being querulous.

Anyway, Rob Bell handled it marvelously well.

Is Rob Bell a Universalist?

The real point of the interview was to harass Rob Bell about his new book, Love Wins and to charge him with universalism.

Rob did a good job of—in so many words—saying that he’s raising questions, not necessarily giving answers. This is the impression that he left Greg Boyd, author of The Myth of a Christian Nation and several other books, with as well. Greg apparently knows Rob Bell and wrote a rebuke of all the people who critiqued Bell before they even read the book.

The host, while carefully maintaining a belligerent polemic, pointed out a couple places where Bell’s book, unlike his interview responses, gave some very clear answers, and they really did sound universalist.

What should we do about this?

Picking the Winning Horse

Let’s establish some parameters here that I think we can all agree on.

  1. Jesus is not going to consult Love Wins when he conducts the final judgment.
  2. The only way Love Wins could possibly affect the judgment is by getting some people to see how great our God really is, believe in Jesus, obtain his grace, and thus live a holy life.

The real question for me is not whether Rob Bell is a universalist, but whether he is getting people to see how great our God really is, believe in Jesus, obtain his grace, and thus live a holy life … with "holy" being defined by Jesus.

I can’t answer whether he’s doing that with Love Wins because I haven’t read it. I can, however, answer it in general. For example, his teaching on being covered in the dust of your rabbi is out of this world. It is so good and so inspiring that it just cannot be ignored.

Even if universalism turns out not to be true, “Covered in the Dust of Your Rabbi” will get us one step closer to everyone being saved!

That’s my opinion, anyway.

Further, I’m pretty sure that the hard-headed, hell-defending, purposely ignorant and sometimes petulant, fatuous, querulous, and belligerent purveyors of the “believe in this version of the atonement and you’ll be saved even if you’re evil” gospel … I’m pretty sure those folks are turning more people away from God than toward him.

Sorry, but mostly they’re making people who are twice as much disciples of hell as they are.

So, if this is a horse race, and the goal is to bring people to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9), then I’m betting on Rob Bell over the fatuous folk.

My Final Judgment on Rob Bell

I don’t really have time to judge Rob Bell, and I highly suspect Jesus wouldn’t pay much attention to my judgment, anyway, except to see how harsh it is so he knows how harshly to judge me.

But I need to have time to judge a couple things so I can determine where to learn from Rob Bell … and where not to. (Kind of like the time I’ve spent learning where to follow and mostly not follow the ignorant—on purpose—and querulant mainstream folks I mentioned above.)

Jesus occasionally accumulated masses of followers. Almost exactly as occasionally, he offended most of them so that they quit following him.

We have to be careful to speak the truth and keep people on the spot. People, in general, are liars and hypocrites. (Yeah, you and me, too, unless you’re making war on that part of you.) The lying and hypocrisy are not always real extensive, but where we don’t have people around us telling us the truth about us (and smiling and loving us at the same time) … well, most of the time we end up hiding some really important problems.

I’ll bet you think I mean internet pornography, drinking, or gambling or something like that.

I don’t. Those are important, too, but you already know about those. No, I mean coldness toward your wife, self-interest, ambition, and worshiping money and comfort by the way you live. I mean no real effort at overcoming the areas where you don’t get along with people, and I mean disinterest in finding out what God wants you to change today.

What does that have to do with Rob Bell?

Chances are, nothing. I happen to be a Christian teacher myself, and I use some of the same methods when I teach, so I’m prone to envying his incredible skill at getting a point across and keeping an audience’s attention. But I have enough of an audience myself to have to warn myself that having an audience doesn’t matter. The truth matters.

My goal has to be to speak the truth, not worry about audience size or audience approval. The real Truth is a being, and he can create his own audience, large or small. When he was on earth it was both, sometimes changing from one to the other quite rapidly. More than once his audience suddenly prepared to kill him!

Rob’s a charmer. Good for him. I’m not ready to follow him in that.

But getting people to be covered in the dust of the Ultimate Rabbi? Now that’s an awesome goal, and Rob Bell will talk you into it.

Posted in Gospel, Miscellaneous, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

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