Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox Churches, and Salvation

Posted on 09/15/2010 by Paul Pavao

This is another email I sent in response to questions that were asked.

In addition to the email I was responding to, I have had several recent emails from supporters of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Most are unable to even consider a thought outside their little boxes, and false beliefs about their “grand” heritage puff them up so they can’t imagine that they have to consider anything except their point of view.

This is why I dismiss their claims …

The Fall of the Church

I generally stick to the fathers from before Nicea because I think that after Nicea the church was basically destroyed. In A.D. 300, perhaps 10% of the empire called themselves Christian, but in A.D. 350 it would have been closer to 90%. That number jumped because the emperor “embraced” Christianity, not because the Gospel actually converted 80% of Roman citizens in 50 years.

Christianity Before the Fall

Before Nicea, I find the agreement among Christian writers remarkable. They have a view of the Trinity that is slightly different from ours, but they completely agree among themselves, and the Nicene Creed expresses their view, not ours. Their description of the basics of the faith is consistent, and their understanding of the church, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper are consistent.

Church leadership changed over that time. Their church meetings got larger, and so they got more organized, more often, and more centered on leaders.

The Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Trees Bearing Fruit

The problem with the Orthodox and Catholics boils down to one Biblical issue. Jesus said that we would know those who spoke for God by their fruit. The Orthodox and Catholics have not had good fruit for centuries, and at times the fruit of the RCC has been as evil as it is possible to be. Even today, almost all Catholics and Orthodox are Christian in name and ritual only. Their faith really doesn’t affect their behavior, and most of them have no idea what it is like to have the Spirit of God living inside of you.

If the fruit is bad, the tree is bad.

Salvation Outside the Church

Yes, both teach that there is no salvation outside the church. How I wish we could still teach that!!!

In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there was only one church. All churches that held that the apostles had taught the one true Gospel were united. They were holy, they were empowered by God, and they were separate from the world. They were an excellent testimony for the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

To willingly choose not to be a part of those churches, which constituted the one church and one mother of us all, was clearly a divisive and thus evil act.

Alas, we no longer have such a situation. To choose to be a part of the Catholic or Orthodox church will do you no good at all. If you are holy in their churches, it is because you learned to be holy somewhere else–whether from the Bible or from a Christian that has the Spirit of God. You will not learn to be holy from Catholic or Orthodox teaching.

Thus, they are in no position to say there’s no salvation outside their churches. The fact is, there is very little salvation inside their churches.

Salvation That Is "Revealed"
(Can Be Seen)

Paul said that he was not ashamed of the Gospel because it was the power of God to salvation, producing a justification that was revealed when people believed (Rom. 1:16-17). The RC and Orthodox Gospel produces no such justification.

Words vs. Power

Modern Christians are way too busy throwing words around. The life of Christ is not about words, it is about power. There’s a lot of talk among RC and Orthodox churches, but almost no power. Among Protestants, power to save and justify is found here and there, but you have a lot better shot than among the RC and Orthodox.

Finding People

My advice is always to look for the people who preach a Gospel that saves and that can be seen to save. You will know the good tree by its fruit, not by its empty words.

Hang with those people, and you will learn the doctrines that God cares about.

Posted in Bible, Church, Gospel, History, Holiness, Leadership, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 25 Comments

The Gates of Hades Shall Not Prevail Against the Church

Posted on 09/13/2010 by Paul Pavao

I’m traveling … not much time to be posting blogs, but this email discussion I’m having addresses an important issue. So here’s the email …

************

I don’t have the confidence that you have to say, “How can the pope and ecumenical bishops deny the first 300 years of the church if brought to them accurately?”

I’ve been asking questions of Christians–Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and Independents alike–for 28 years now. I used to believe that if they only knew what was true, they would change. It took me a long time and a lot of heartache to realize that most of them don’t want to know what is true. No matter how you present the truth, they will not understand it because they don’t want to understand it.

THE GATES OF HADES

I’d like to also question one of your premises. You said that the promise that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the church means that the true church will always be here until Jesus returns.

Does it really mean that? I know the Roman Catholic Church says it means that, but does that interpretation really make any sense?

Think about it. Since when are gates offensive weapons?

Gates are for defense. I think that Jesus is saying that the church, wherever it exists, will have the power to overthrow death (Hades being the place of the dead in Scripture). If it happens not to exist at some time, that doesn’t mean Jesus promise isn’t true. It’s not the gates of Hades that caused the church to begin accepting carnal people during the time of Constantine.

It is simply true that the testimony of the church was at least reduced and perhaps absent during the 4th century.

It is also true that if you wanted to see a group of people with the same testimony that 2nd century churches had–unity, love, commitment to Jesus Christ, rejection of this world–then the place to find that testimony was among the Anabaptists, not among the Catholics or Protestants.

Thus, I would argue that God doesn’t recognize or care about hierarchies. The church is an organism, not an organization, and it always has been.

Let’s take my small town, for example. If the Gospel of Christ is preached, and people begin to live by his Spirit, displaying the righteousness that is always the product of the Gospel, and uniting with one another as a family in love … why should those people bother to contact a hierarchy that is neither scripturally nor historically justified?

Why shouldn’t those people simply continue in the Gospel together, opening their hearts and homes for fellowship with any other churches living the same way?

As Tertullian put it: “Those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.”

It is teaching (and the holy living that results from teaching) that marks a church as apostolic, not its attachment to an unscriptural organization.

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

Good Works: What Are They?

Posted on 09/05/2010 by Paul Pavao

One of the posts I want to get to today or tomorrow is on the two stages of salvation. There’s the first one, deliverance from the world, and the second stage, facing the judgment and entering the kingdom.

Very different things are said about those two stages in Scripture, especially in Paul, who was careful to distinguish the two.

However, that entails talking about works and their role in our salvation, and that’s not a good thing to do without defining works.

I’ve been guilty of talking about works without defining them, but I’m not going to do so this time.

What Are Good Works

The easiest place to begin is in Matthew 25:31-46.

When we talk about good works, whose definition should we use?

I suggest using God’s definition because he is the one who is going to judge our works (Rom 2:5-7; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Pet. 1:17; etc.).

Jesus describes the judgment in Matthew 25.

Many people believe there will be more than one judgment, but there’s really no Scripture suggesting that. A good study on the judgment will make you realize that the only reason people teach two judgments is because of the false teaching that Christians are not to be judged concerning their eternal entrance into God’s kingdom.

Scripture clearly contradicts that idea (Eph. 5:5-8; 2 Pet. 1:5-11; among a lot of others)

It appears, from Matthew 25:31-46, that the works Jesus is concerned about involve helping people: feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and clothing the naked.

What About All the Other Stuff?

Paul lists a lot of bad works in Gal. 5:19-21, and he says the practicing of those works will keep us out of the kingdom of heaven.

How does that mesh with what Jesus described in Matt. 25?

I always prefer to adopt a view that lets all the Scripture be true, not one that chooses one verse over another.

I think the Scriptures assume that the sheep of Matt. 25 don’t practice the sins of Gal. 5:19-21. In almost every case, people who practice drunkenness, envy, jealousy, outbursts of wrath, adultery, etc. are not people who open their homes to the hungry, thirsty, sick, and imprisoned.

Let’s keep this simple. Rather than debating the status of those who feed the hungry and take in the homeless, yet who practice drunkenness, anger, and sexual immorality at the same time, let’s do some thing different. Let’s leave that judgment to God.

For ourselves, though, let’s acknowledge that it’s probably not a good idea to leave yourself in that position. The Scriptures say, repeatedly as a matter of fact, that if you practice drunkenness, lying, greed, and sexual immorality, you won’t inherit God’s kingdom.

So let’s not do those things.

The Mercy of God

Somehow, once we adopted Thomas Aquinas’ 13th century teaching that Jesus’ died for the penalty of our sins rather than for our sins, we also began to believe that it is just for God to torment people eternally for just one sin.

It’s not true.

  • We were already dead in our sins. We needed someone to give us life, not pay a penalty we’re currently paying.
  • It’s not just to torture people eternally for just one sin (and thus God would never do that).
  • What makes us sinners is not one sin, but the fact that the vast majority of humans are basically radically selfish all the time (Rom. 3:10-23).
  • God has always been willing to forgive sin.

Oh, how we underestimate the mercy of God!

Even before Jesus died, God was willing to completely forgive the wicked person who repented. As Ezekiel put it:

If the wicked man turns from all the sins which he has committed, keeps all my statutes, and does that which is lawful and right, then he shall surely live; he shall not die. All the transgressions that he has committed shall not be mentioned to him. In the righteousness he has done, he will live. (Ezek. 33:21-22)

I love the way God puts it in Isaiah:

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts. Let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. (Is. 55:7)

Does this sound like a God that sends people to hell for one sin?

God described himself to Moses is this way:

Yahweh, Yahweh God, merciful and gracious, patient, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands and forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin. (Ex. 34:6)

Never mind that God adds that he will not clear the guilty. Obviously, the wicked man who turns from his wickedness does not constitute the guilty. The wicked man who turns from his wickedness will never have the evil things he’s done mentioned to him.

As it turns out, we need help forsaking our evil ways.

Knowing what is righteous is not enough. That’s what Romans 7 is about. Showing us what’s good is not the same as our having the power to perform what is good.

It is that problem for which Jesus died. As Romans 8 puts it, "what the Law could not do" (empower us to perform what is good) "God did."

He then adds that the way God did this was by sending his Son is the likeness of our sinful flesh, as an offering for sin, so that the righteous requirement of the Law would be fulfilled in us if we walk by the Spirit.

What a wonderful deliverance!!!

God’s Ongoing Mercy

Even after we are empowered by the grace and Spirit of God to do good works (Eph. 2:10; Tit. 2:11-14), God’s mercy does not disappear.

He still plans on having to forgive us regularly.

There’s some clear statements to that effect. James, for example, says that we all stumble in many things (Jam. 3:2).

However, there’s verses that I think paint the picture better.

If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 Jn. 1:7-9)

I think it’s apparent that even in 1 John, perhaps the strictest letter in the New Testament, it is made clear that God expects to be forgiving us regularly.

John goes on to say that the very purpose he’s writing is so that we don’t sin (2:1). But he immediately follows that with, "If anyone does sin," and he goes on to make it clear that both the Father and the Son forgive us with kindness, being on our side.

So Where’s the Line?

Whenever I say that we will be judged by our works, and that our eternal life will be on the line (Rom. 2:5-8; 1 Pet. 1:17; 2 Pet. 1:5-11; Rev. 3:4-5; and others), people always want to know where the line is.

In fact, many don’t want to know where the line is; instead they object to the possibility that there even could be a line.

What can I say? It’s the Scriptures that say God is a Judge. If there’s a Judge, then there’s a decision being made. Some will be saved, some will be lost, and both the saved and the lost will be saved or lost on the basis of their works.

That’s what the Bible says, anyway.

We’re supposed to be scared that we’ll cross the line (1 Pet. 1:17; 1 Cor. 10:12).

We looked already at the suggestion that there is a line. Exodus 34:6-7 says that God has mercy for thousands, but he will by no means clear the guilty. There are those who are under his mercy, and there are those who are "the guilty," and God is waiting for them to turn from their wicked ways.

The New Testament says very similar things.

In Gal. 6:7-9, Paul says, "God is not mocked."

There are those who stumble, yet they nonetheless walk in the light, and the blood of Christ cleanses their sin. They confess their sins, and God forgives their sins.

And then there’s those whose life mocks God, and they will reap corruption because they sow to the flesh. They are not under God’s mercy, they are not in the light, and they are not confessing their sins.

Of those people, God says, "They profess to know God, but in works they deny him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work" (Tit. 1:16).

There are those who have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, when they sin, and then there are those who practice the works of the flesh and thus do not inherit God’s kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5).

You can see this happening in Jesus’ letters to the churches in Rev. 2 & 3.

One of my favorite parts of those chapters is the letter to Sardis. There he says that there are those who have not defiled their garments, and they are "worthy."

So much for the idea that we can’t be worthy or that we can’t merit salvation.

We can’t merit the first stage of salvation, our deliverance from the world and from the bondage of sin. We are born again apart from works.

We can merit the second stage, which is going to heaven and happens after the judgment. In fact, we must because if we are not worthy, we will not walk with him in white (Rev. 3:4-5).

You can see the different ways Jesus deals with the sins of the churches. There are those who are worthy, and who will walk with him in white, and there are those who will not.

There are those that he is simply correcting (Rev. 2:24), and there are those that he is threatening with being vomited out of his mouth (3:16) or having their candlestick removed (2:5).

Thus, there is a line.

The line, however, is for the stubborn. It is for those that mock God. It is for those whose lives deny that they know God.

It is not for those who confess their sins and walk in the light, yet happen to stumble.

Those people can know God as the God who abundantly pardons, whose mercies are new every morning, and who does not impute our sins to us.

Paul’s Preaching

This all fits with the fact that Paul summed up his preaching by saying that what he was proclaiming was …

… that they should repent and turn to God and do works appropriate to repentance. (Acts 26:20)

Was this really what Paul was preaching?

Yes, it was … at least according to Paul.

We’ve gotten so stuck in Romans that we have created an interpretation of Romans that contradicts Paul’s Gospel! Out of the very book in which he says he’s not ashamed of the Gospel (1:16)!

Romans does not contradict the idea that Paul preached that the Gentiles should repent and turn to God and do works appropriate to repentance. In Romans 6, he exhorts them to submit their body parts to God for his service so that they don’t die (6:16-23). In Romans 8 he tells them that if they put to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit, then they will live, but if they live according to the flesh, they will die.

These things are incredibly consistent in Scripture.

They’re just inconsistent with our traditions.

Summing Up Works and Mercy

The focus of God is love. Not only are the two greatest commandments to love God and your neighbor, but the apostle Paul says that loving your neighbor fulfills the entire Law (Rom. 13:8-10).

God is not focused on nitpicking us to death for a wrong word, a foul mood, or some other act of human frailty.

God is looking for those who walk according to the Spirit, so that he can shower them with mercy and not hold their sins against them.

But to those who make a habit of living according to the flesh and make no effort to live spiritually or to learn or obey the commands of Christ, he will not be mocked. Sow to the flesh, and you will reap corruption.

Therefore, do not grow weary in doing good, for in due season you will reap [eternal life] if you do not lose heart. (Gal. 6:10)

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

The Appearance of Paul, Part 6

Posted on 09/05/2010 by Paul Pavao

We’ll see how much blogging I can get done tonight. I hope to write more than one.

I’ve done 4 parts of a series on the appearance of Paul before tonight. This is Part 6 because I skipped part 4 in order to do part 5 on exhortation, which I think is very important.

All of those were from 1 Thessalonians, chapter 2.

Now I’m continuing to skip part 4 so that I can get to the part that doesn’t come from 1 Thess. 2.

This is 2 Cor. 10:10 …

For his letters, they say, are weighty and powerful, but in bodily presence he’s week, and his speech is unimpressive.

Paul the Famous Preacher?

Nowadays messages given by preachers are well-prepared. They are not only taught how to outline and write a sermon, but they are taught how to deliver it as well.

There’s a lot of shouting along with careful use of pauses and even quiet whispers for effect. A properly trained preacher uses hand motions, and he makes sure to move his body around—whether by walking or by vigorous gestures—to keep his audience’s attention.

Most sermons have three points, and if possible, they should all begin with the same letter.

Not Paul’s. The report about him is that his speech was unimpressive.

Paul’s Purpose

I remember the first time I did a radio program on a Christian station in Sacramento.

As soon as I got done, I got my first phone call at the station. Because I was on in the evening, the front desk was closed, and the technician and I listened to the answering machine pick up the call.

"I don’t know who this guy is," the caller began. "He never gave any credentials, and he didn’t even preach! He just talked!"

The caller would have had a hard time with the apostle Paul, too. Paul was concerned about content, not presentation.

I … did not come with excellency of speech or wisdom … I was with you in weakness, in fear, and with much trembling. My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of Spirit and power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of man, but on the power of God. (1 Cor. 2:1,3-4)

Paul had something to say, and he was not ashamed of it.

He knew that his Gospel was the power of God to salvation, and he was content to let God back it up, not his seminary training.

And don’t be confused; Paul had seminary training. He studied under Gamaliel. He knew human wisdom, and he makes it clear in Romans that he knows how to logically argue.

He saved his logical arguments, however, for those who were already convinced. Those that he had to convince, he sought to convince with the straight powerful words of the Gospel.

The verse I left out above says, "I determined to know nothing among except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2).

Don’t be deceived into thinking that Paul determined to know nothing among them except the crucifixion of Christ. That is not what that verse says.

1 Cor. 2:2 says he determined to know nothing except Jesus Christ, not nothing except the crucifixion.

Yes, Paul carefully includes the crucifixion in that statement, but it is not all he knew or all he preached. All he knew and preached was Christ, which includes everything about him.

For example, in that very letter he devotes an entire chapter to the resurrection (1 Cor. 15), which is possibly more important even than the crucifixion because it is the resurrection that proves he is Christ (Acts 2:32-36) and which the apostles were commanded to testify to (Acts 1:22; 4:33).

Learning from the apostle Paul

It would do us good to learn from Paul. I cannot imagine him recommending three point sermons with each point starting with the same letter.

It’s not the ability to be remembered that makes a good sermon; it’s the power of God that makes a good sermon.

The whole idea of picking a pastor from a school somewhere is completely contrary to the spirit of the New Covenant. Shepherds were chosen from among the people, and the Christians knew their shepherds. They knew their history in Christ, they knew their testimony, and they knew the power of their walk with the Lord.

That’s why the writer of Hebrews could tell us to submit to our leaders "considering the result of their behavior" (Heb. 13:7).

That’s why Timothy and Titus were left in Ephesus and Crete, respectively, to appoint elders.

Timothy and Titus were not pastors; they were apostles (1 Thess. 1:1; 2:6).

Apostles appointed elders to shepherd the churches (Acts 20:17,28), and some of them, especially Peter, functioned as elders themselves (1 Pet. 1:1-4).

One early Christian wrote:

Tested men, our elders, preside over us, obtaining that honor not by purchase, but by established character. (Tertullian, Apology 39, c. A.D. 200)

There’s some things we need to do differently?

Let me ask, when you teach or when you hear teaching, is it the enticing words of man’s wisdom, or is it the power of God?

P.S. That’s not a suggestion that everyone preaches 3 point sermons that they learned to preach in seminary. There are plenty of pastors that know they’re supposed to depend on the power of God.

Nor is every 3-point sermon a bad one.

Nonetheless, the practice of bringing in some unknown outsider to shepherd is almost universal, and depending on human wisdom learned in a seminary is rampant.

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

How Do You Minister to a Homeless Person

Posted on 08/28/2010 by Paul Pavao

I have several posts I really need to get on this blog, but I have a lot of other things to do today instead. Sad …

So I just want to send you to an awesome blog post I read today. (I found it through a Google Alert that come to my email inbox.)

Peanuts Christ

You will read that post all the way to the end.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Blessing and Cursing

Posted on 08/26/2010 by Paul Pavao

Don’t let this post stop you from reading the previous one I just wrote, which is better and more important.

Not that this one isn’t important, so …

Blessing and Cursing

I remember my surprise the first time I really noticed Proverbs 26:2 as I was reading …

Like a flitting sparrow, like a flying swallow, so a curse without cause shall not alight. (NKJV)

A curse without cause shall not alight?

Doesn’t that suggest that a curse with cause shall alight?

Real Blessing and Real Cursing

Remember the story of Balaam? Balak of Moab hired Balaam to curse the Israelites.

Balak was scared of Israel. He hired Balaam because he believed that Balaam’s curse would really happen. It would hinder the Israelites.

In other words, Balak—and Balaam who accepted his employ—believed that a curse would cause real world damage.

Remember Jacob and Esau?

Jacob sneaked into Isaac’s tent to steal Esau’s blessing, which was his by right because Esau sold it to him for a bowl of lentils.

When Esau came later, seeking a blessing, Isaac said …

Behold, I have made him your ruler, and I have given him all his relatives as servants. I have sustained him with corn and wine. What shall I do for you now, my son? (Gen. 27:37)

It’s apparent, isn’t it, that Isaac believed his blessing had power. He did not talk about wishing something were so. He talked about "making him" and "giving him" and "sustaining him."

No wonder the Scripture says death and life are in the power of the tongue (Prov. 18:21).

Dealing with Curses

I believe the Bible is correct. I believe blessing and cursing carry power, though that power varies from person to person depending on their faith and sincerity.

However, the Scriptures do not only talk about the power of blessing and cursing. They talk also of the power of those who follow God …

A great example is Balaam, whom we have mentioned.

Balaam obviously knew the power of cursing, or he would never have accepted Balak’s offer. Yet, when it came time to curse Israel, he was unable to. He excused himself to Balak with, "How shall I curse those whom God has not cursed?" (Numbers 23:8)

Also, as we saw in the verse that begins this post, Proverbs claims that a curse without cause shall not alight.

Finally, the Scriptures say repeatedly to those who inherit the promises of Abraham, "I will curse those who curse you."

Cursing Versus Cussing

In modern times we have turned do not curse into do not cuss.

Have you ever wondered why damn and hell are cuss words?

They are cuss words because they were originally curse words. People would tell other people, "God damn you," as in, "May God condemn you."

Similarly, "Go to hell" was a curse that at one time people meant.

Cursing someone to be condemned by God and to go to hell are things the Bible forbids to Christians. We are told to bless and not curse by Paul and to bless even those who curse us by Jesus himself?

Why should we worry? If we are under God’s blessing, how can a mere man curse us? If we give no cause, then a curse should not alight.

Worse, those who curse us face being cursed by God. Thus, it is a matter of kindness to bless in return so that they are not damned by God.

Of course, we have added a lot of other cuss words that are not curse words since cursing became cussing. I won’t print any of them on my blog, of course.

Cussing

This section is completely and aside. It adds nothing to what’s above, but it’s related, and I thought you’d be interested in this.

The Scriptures say nothing about cussing because cussing wasn’t invented back when the Scriptures were written. They still knew about cursing. They didn’t know there were words you shouldn’t say just because they have 4 letters in them.

That doesn’t mean we should cuss.

The Scriptures do forbid us "filthiness, silly talk, and jesting" (Eph. 5:3).

I don’t believe that means never telling a joke. If it does, then you might as well curse me with going to hell because I’m definitely on my way straight there.

I think that verse is talking about being crude and silly. Christians are told to be sensible and responsible (my interpretation of sober and grave, which I think can be justified by the Greek words).

No one wants to lean upon or trust a crude or silly person.

An example of what I think the Scriptures are talking about with jesting is Prov. 26:18-19: "Like a madman throwing firebrands, arrows and death, so is the one who deceives his neighbor and then says, ‘I was just joking.’"

Cussing is a sign of a weak intellect. By that I don’t mean people who cuss aren’t smart. I mean they’re lazy, indifferent to the feelings of others, uncontrolled, and offensive. In other words, they’re wimpy about putting effort into their lives and relationships.

Most cussing can be replaced by very effective adjectives, and overcoming a bit of laziness will allow us to communicate our feelings more fully, more accurately, and with respect.

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

Peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ

Posted on 08/26/2010 by Paul Pavao

I promised a post on peace "tomorrow." I should have said "next post."

It’s been 3 days. So, here goes.

Paul commonly blesses his readers with "grace and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ." Often it’s at both the start and end of the letter (though usually at the end it’s only grace; Ephesians has only peace at the end).

I don’t believe it’s something Paul just says as a nice saying. I think he knew what he was saying, and he meant it.

I addressed grace in the last post. Let’s address peace today.

The Peace of God as Arbiter

I’m sure the phrase "the peace of God" puts Col. 3:15 in many of your minds:

Let the peace of God adjudicate in your hearts, to which you were also called in one body.

You probably don’t recognize that translation, since I made it up. The NASB tells us to let God’s peace "rule" in our hearts, but a note says "act as arbiter." I have heard repeatedly that the Greek word indicates judgment as in what a referee does.

Thus, Colossians 3:15 tells us that we are to let God’s peace make decisions in our heart.

Since it’s Paul who wrote the letter to the Colossians, I have to imagine that when he wishes grace and peace to the churches to whom he’s writing, that he is thinking about such thing. With the peace of God we can be directed in making decisions.

God can make his will known to us by peace.

The Peace of God as Guard

The other NT passage that comes right to mind is …

Do not fret about anything, but in everything make your requests known to God by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, and the peace of God, which surpasses understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. (Php. 4:6-7)

Now that’s an awesome promise!

You don’t have to be told that we all want such peace. Worry is not something we like.

We like peace. There is nothing better than feeling like everything is under control and the way it ought to be. Making your requests known to God with thanksgiving will bring that peace. It lets us know that everything is under the control of God.

Notice, too, that it’s a peace which surpasses understanding.

The peace of God is something supernatural. That’s why Paul wishes his readers peace rather than commanding them to have it.

He does command them not to worry, but peace he wishes to them in the form of blessing them.

That’s because it’s something supernatural. It will not come to you by your choice. It will come to you by your obedience.

You do what God wants, and God himself sends you peace.

Setting Your Mind on God

There’s one more verse on the peace of God that simply cannot be left out:

Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee. (Is. 26:3)

I used the KJV there because I’ve heard that verse from the KJV for 28 years. I’ve even sang it in song that way numerous times, I think because of an old Maranatha Praise tape.

The peace of God is promised to us if we will set our mind on our Father.

That’s not the only promise made to those who simply set their mind on God.

Those who are of the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are of the Spirit on the things of the Spirit. To be fleshly-minded is death, but to be spiritually-minded is life and peace. (Rom. 8:5-6)

That’s pretty awesome results for just thinking about spiritual things, don’t you think?

Though our outward man is being consumed, yet the inward man is being renewed daily. For our light affliction, which lasts only a moment, is bringing us a far more abundant and eternal mass of glory, while we do not look at what is visible, but at things which are invisible; for the visible is temporary, but the invisible is eternal. (2 Cor. 4:16b-18)

Again, pretty awesome result for just what we’re paying attention to, don’t you think?

You can find similar things all over Paul’s letters, in both promise and command form.

If, then, you are risen with Christ, set your mind on things above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Think about things above, not on things on the earth. (Col. 3:1-2)

We are to set our minds. That’s our command and duty. The peace of God is the blessing that is returned for it.

Blessing

Paul "wishes" his readers grace and peace in the form of a blessing. I don’t think Americans understand the importance the Bible ascribes to blessing.

That’s for a different post, however …

Posted in Holiness, Miscellaneous | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Grace and Peace

Posted on 08/23/2010 by Paul Pavao

2nd post tonight …

Paul begins and ends many of his letters with "Grace and peace be with you from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ."

Yesterday, I talked about the reason it’s God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. Today, I want to talk about the grace and peace.

I like to end my own letters with "grace be with you" because I know what it means.

Grace

Grace is that wonderful, effective power of God that breaks sin’s hold on us and empowers us for service.

It’s a big word that describes almost everything the Holy Spirit does in us.

Grace …

  • causes sin to lose its power over us (Rom. 6:14)
  • teaches us to live righteously, godly, and wisely in this present age (Tit. 2:11-14)
  • helps us in time of need

Grace is also the power behind whatever spiritual gift or gifts God has given us (1 Pet. 4:10).

Grace Be With You

Doesn’t that make "Grace be with you" a rather incredible blessing?

Let’s keep this short. I’ll do peace tomorrow.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Why Do We Do This?

Posted on 08/23/2010 by Paul Pavao

I was reading one of my own archived posts, and I was reminded why we do this.

What do we do?

We take a stand for change. We preach a Gospel that demands the counting of the cost and explains the cost as everything. We say you cannot be a Christian without doing so because cannot is the word Christ used (Luke 14:26-33).

The fact is, the vast majority of "Christians" don’t make it.

Many of those are trying, or at least want to try, but they don’t know how.

They pray more, read the Bible more, and it makes them dislike prayer and the Bible more than ever. It’s supposed to help them, but it seems just to condemn them.

Then they fall away, get on the internet, get besieged by atheists with loads of information on problems with the Bible and Christianity, and they join the attack on the religion that made them feel bad.

What Do We Need To Change

  1. Preach a true Gospel. Let people know that Jesus wants everything, that he’s worth everything, and that the church is for those that at least want to have their lives changed by Jesus.
  2. Bring them into the church—not a club with bi-weekly meetings, but a family. Show them that you meant what you said, and that your house is their house, your family is their family, and your money is their money.

Pretty dangerous to do that second one, huh?

It’s not so dangerous when you do that with disciples—with people who are giving up everything for Christ.

A Caveat Based on the Mercy of God

I do often sound like God is a harsh taskmaster.

It’s not so.

You do have to give up the world. The Gospel is an exchange of your own life for Christ’s life. Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone. It is only after you die that you enter Christ’s family.

The Gospel cannot be compromised.

But …

But we’re not talking about entering a life where God is looking over your shoulder, measuring the length of your skirt, and pinch testing the tightness of your jeans.

We’re talking about obeying Christ, the friend of sinners, whose burden is easy and whose yoke is light. We’re talking about opening your home to strangers, about being free from caring about money, about trusting and praising God in joyful delight, about fellowshipping with Christ and with his people.

Entering the life of Christ is not entering a monastery. It is entering the wonderful, joyful life of Christ. Holy, yes, but also a touch wild, a touch rebellious, and more likely to get you called a glutton, winebibber, and kook than to be called righteous.

Jesus hung out with the wrong people. His holiness offended the Pharisees, and he openly expressed distaste for them. He publicly called them snakes and pretenders. He accused them of devouring widows’ houses!

You do have to be brave to be a Christian. You do have to help the needy.

You do not have to be boring, and you certainly don’t need the righteousness of the Pharisees.

Jesus commands are given so that your joy may be full.

Final Comment: Continuing in Christ’s Commands

Okay, that was a long caveat.

Back to the point.

If we are going to continue in Christ’s commands, we are going to have to do it together. We need each other. Those who sell everything are supposed to get the pearl of great price in return, not just a bunch of rules about how to live.

In other words, when the seed falls into the ground and dies, it’s supposed to come out never alone again.

We’re supposed to be a family, but we’re never going to be a family with people who don’t give a hoot about Christ’s commands or who explain why they’re unnecessary. Wish them well, kiss them goodbye, then dust your feet off and leave them.

Same with the Pharisees. There’s no hope of bringing them around until they repent of their evil ways, stumbling little ones.

(I’m a little afraid I’ve been a Pharisee on the internet by accident, though those who know me would never call me a Pharisee in person.)

But with those who will fall in love with Jesus, boldly or quietly, we can be family. We can take care of each other, worship God together, and make sure none of us is ever alone again except for when we’re sent on a mission by God.

Posted in Church, Gospel, Holiness, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

The Trinity, the Council of Nicea, and the Substance of God

Posted on 08/22/2010 by Paul Pavao

In A.D. 325, Eusebius, the first church historian and the bishop (link opens in new window) of the church in Caesarea, wrote a letter.

To me, it is one of the most surprisingly ignored letters in the history of the church.

THe letter is an explanation of the Nicene Creed immediately after its acceptance by the bishops present at the Council of Nicea. Despite the fact that Eusebius says, “We did not neglect to investigate the distinct sense of the expressions,” no one, not even historians, seems to pay any attention to Eusebius’ explanation of what was meant by the wording of the Nicene Creed.

Understand that the Nicene Creed is the basis of the Apostles Creed, which is recited in all Catholic churches and many Protestant churches every week to this day. Numerous Christian organizations use the Apostles Creed as a basic statement of faith, requiring all those they fellowship with to assent to it.

Yet most, if not all, of those churches don’t believe the Nicene Creed.

Shocking Statements in the Nicene Creed

The most shocking statement of all in the Nicene Creed is right on the surface. It is its basic declaration of belief:

We believe in one God, the Father …

This statement is not followed by a clarification explaining that what we actually believe is in one God who is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Instead it reads …

We believe in one God, the Father … and in one Lord, Jesus Christ … and in the Holy Spirit

We Believe in One God, the Father

I’m reading a book right now by Justo Gonzalez, an excellent, well-informed historian.

Justo Gonzales is a professional historian. He knows a lot more than I do. I love his books, and I highly recommend him.

Yet in his chapter on the Trinity, when he expounds on the Nicene Creed for 6 pages, he never mentions that it says that there is one God, the Father. He never mentions that Christian writings previous to Nicea use the same terminology. He never points out that even the apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8:6, uses the same terminology.

Nor does he mention that Jesus Christ himself calls the Father, separating the Father from himself, the one true God (Jn. 17:3).

Combating Arianism

The Nicene Creed was convened to put the doctrines of Arius, an elder in the church at Alexandria, to rest.

Arius taught that the Son, Jesus, was created by the Father in the beginning in the same manner that angels, people, and the universe were created. He taught that Jesus was created from nothing.

Admittedly, he also taught that the Son was the first and greatest creation of God the Father. He taught that the Son went on to create everything else.

Nonetheless, he taught that the Son was created from nothing, and the church objected to this.

The Difference between Arianism and Orthodox Christianity

Today, most people believe that the difference between Arius and all the bishops at Nicea (except two who embraced Arius’ doctrines) is that Arius taught that the Father was the one God while everyone else taught that the one God was three persons.

Let me pause to point out here that there’s an element of truth in this. The Trinity is a complicated subject, which is the reason that there is so much error on the subject.

The real difference between Arianism and the Nicene Creed is this …

Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Son was created from the substance of God, and Arius taught that the Son was created from nothing.

Both views allowed Christians to say that there is one God, the Father. Obviously, that had to be true because the Nicene Creed says that there is one God, the Father.

The Nicene view, which is taught in every early Christian writing from the time of the apostles until Nicea, teaches that the Son was then birthed from the substance of God, not created from nothing.

Matter and “God”

The early church liked to call everything God created “matter.” It didn’t matter—sorry for the accidental pun—whether they were referring to dirt, air, stars, animals, the spirit of men, or angels. If God created it from nothing, then it was matter.

Matter had a beginning, so matter is not eternal.

Anything, they argued, that had a beginning could have an end.

Therefore, if the Son was created from nothing, it didn’t matter what you called him, he wasn’t really eternal, and he isn’t really divine. If he had a beginning, then he can have an end.

Thus, Arianism made the Son to be mortal.

To the early churches, the only substance in the universe besides matter was “God.” The divine substance is that unknowable essence that God is made of. That substance alone is eternal. That substance alone has always existed.

In the same way, that substance alone cannot cease to exist. It had no beginning, and thus it can have no end.

The substance of God is truly eternal.

Homoousios

The Nicene Creed was not created from nothing, either.

The early churches all had their own creed. It was called the rule of faith, and it was taught to every member at baptism.

The Nicene Creed was based on the rule of faith of the church at Caesarea.

Eusebius’ letter gives the church at Caesarea’s rule of faith and explains that it was agreed to by all the members of the council. The council then added to it …

It was Constantine who …

… exhort[ed] all present to give [the creed of Caesarea] their assent … with the insertion, however, of that single word homoousios.

Homoousios means "same substance."

In other words, the Council of Nicea was trying to emphasize that the Son was of the same substance as God, the Father.

In this way, the council emphasized that the Son was truly eternal and truly divine.

Emphasizing Substance

The emphasis on substance is all over the Nicene Creed …

"… that is, of the substance of the Father"

"… God from God … true God from true God"

"… begotten, not made, of the same substance as the Father"

And the council added something at the end that most of us do not repeat today …

"But those who … assert that ‘he is of other substance or essence than the Father’ … the catholic and apostolic church of God anathematizes.

Three times in that short creed the substance of God is mentioned.

Actually, the substance of God is mentioned four times because "God from God" and "true God from true God" is also a reference to the substance or essence of God.

The phrase "God from God," nor ever "true God from true God," cannot be a reference to saying that the Son is the one true God, or "part" of the one true God because the creed has already said, "There is one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ."

Why Does This Matter

Why am I bringing all this up? Does this really matter?

The reason I give for bringing all this up is that the Council of Nicea was convened to put Arianism to rest. Yet our interpretation of the Nicene Creed has allowed Arianism to crop up anew in the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Yes, it is our fault that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are able to prosper and thrive.

The Nicene Creed is scriptural. Understood correctly, it allows us still to say what 1 Corinthians 8:6 says, "For us there is but one God, the Father."

The Nicene Creed also allows us to understand John 17:3 in its plain sense. It’s part of a prayer by Jesus, and Jesus says, "This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

By the Nicene understanding, we can still believe that there is only one God, the Father, yet allow Jesus to still be truly divine and called God.

By our modern understanding, Jesus is truly divine, but we don’t believe that the Father is the one true God, as Jesus said. Instead, we believe that the one true God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together in some mysterious way that confuses everyone.

As a result, the Jehovah’s Witnesses thrive on quoting John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. Those verses seem to support the JW position and refute ours.

Those verses do refute ours. They do not, however, support the JW view, and that’s why there’s so many other verses that we can use to answer the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Verses Versus Verses

Today, with all our various modern traditions, it is normal for churches to use verses against one another. One church uses verses that seem to teach eternal security, and another church uses verses that seem to teach we can lose our salvation.

This doesn’t seem to bother us. We present our verses, and as long as we think we have more verses than the other church, then we can hold onto our doctrine.

It’s almost like we’re content to believe the Bible contradicts itself!

It doesn’t contradict itself. We’ve simply lost a lot of apostolic teachings over the centuries, and we’re not interested enough to get them back!

(By the way, I cover apostolic teaching on eternal security and losing your salvation on numerous pages of my Christian history site, such as one I titled Sola Fide.)

Summing Up the Council of Nicea

According to the Council of Nicea—and according to the Bible and the writings of the churches prior to Nicea—there is one God, the Father.

Then, either eternally—so that it had always happened, there being no time prior to the beginning—or in the beginning the one God, the Father, gave birth to his Word. The Word was "begotten, not made."

The Son was not created from nothing. He was, quite literally, the Word or Reason of God. Formerly, inside of the Father, having always existed inside of the Father, he was birthed as a second person to Almighty God, thus making God the Father and the Word his Son.

What About the Holy Spirit?

The Council of Nicea doesn’t address this. They state simply, "We believe in the Holy Spirit."

The Scriptures don’t address the subject of God’s Spirit very well, either, though I should point out that the Spirit of God is mentioned throughout the Old Testament, yet the Jews didn’t (and still don’t) teach a duality. They don’t teach two persons in one God. They simply mention God’s Spirit.

Later, after Nicea, the Church added that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father." (I use "churches" prior to Nicea because that’s how it worked. After Nicea, once there were general councils and four bishops who ruled over all of Christendom, I use "Church.")

Sometime before A.D. 800, the Roman Catholic Church made it "proceeds from the Father and the Son," and the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox are still divided over that to this day.

Scriptural and Early Church Support

This blog is already incredibly long. I did not fill it with Scripture or early church quotes. You can find such references at Christian History for Everyman.

I will point out that the early churches used to quote Psalm 45:1 from the Septuagint, "My heart has emitted a good Word," and Prov. 22:8, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways and works," to support their view.

Like John 17:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have co-opted Prov. 22:8 to their view because we have forgotten what the early church taught.

I’d like us to be able to understand the Scriptures for what they say, know what the apostles taught their churches, and understand the Nicene Creed.

Thus, this post on my blog.

Posted in Church, History, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments