The Church Fathers and the Pope

Posted on 09/30/2010 by Paul Pavao

I wasn’t going to blog today; I don’t have time. Nonetheless, I simply can’t let this pass.

I couldn’t believe it when I read this:

This is what stuck in Alex’s mind, and it led him to make a fateful mistake: He started to read the Fathers of the Church. In a short time it was all over for him. He realized that the earliest Christians were, uh, Catholics! Alex saw the continuity between what the writers of the early centuries professed and what the Christians who saw our Lord professed. There was a straight line connecting them. The sacraments, the papacy, authority, Mary and the saints—the whole works. (Restless Pilgrim)

Mary? The papacy? In the church fathers?

If this blog were talking about 5th and 6th century Christians, I could understand that. After virtually the whole Roman empire became "Christians" in the 4th century, all sorts of idolatry come roaring in. The emperor Julian the Apostate commented that Christians were more into hero worship than the pagans, and that was just A.D. 360 or so.

However, this blog specifically mentioned "the Fathers of the Church, those earliest Christian writers who lived in the first, second, and third centuries."

The Pope Before Nicea

In the first, second, and third centuries, there is dead silence on the matter of the pope because there was no pope. Oops, sorry … the bishop of Alexandria was being called "The Papa"—the pope—by the mid-3rd century.

So what made Alex think there was a pope in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century fathers?

  • Was it Clement of Rome’s use of elder and bishop interchangeably to indicate that there was no individual bishop in Rome in A.D. 96?
  • Was it that Ignatius’ letter to Rome is astonishingly silent on the matter of a bishop there, when he praises and extols the bishop of every other church he writes to?
  • Was it the 7th Council of Carthage, where "Saint" Cyprian led 82 bishops in rejecting a decision of Stephen, bishop of Rome in A.D. 250?
  • Was it the comment made by "Saint" Cyprian at that council that no bishop could set himself up as a bishop over other bishops?
  • Was it Irenaeus comment that Rome was a really important church because it was founded by Paul and Peter, but any apostolic church would do for showing that truth was passed down from the apostles to his time (A.D. 185 or so)?
  • Was it Firmilian’s letter to "Saint" Cyprian commenting that it was unconscionable for Stephen to set himself up as the successor of Peter? Or was it perhaps Cyprian’s teaching, On the Unity of the Church, which says that every bishop inherited the authority of Peter?

Mary Before the Council of Nicea

Admittedly, I’m a little uninformed on the fathers from the late 3rd century. In the 2nd century, however, Mary is simply ignored. The same with Tertullian and Origen from the early 3rd centuries. There is simply no indication that she was venerated in any way.

I just did a search on Catholic sources. They have one quote from Justin (A.D. 150) and one from Irenaeus (A.D. 185) saying approximately the same thing. Eve, the virgin, fell by disobedience, and Mary, the virgin, corrected this by her obedience.

Recapitulation is found here and there in the fathers, and it’s an inspiring teaching. Adam sinned through a tree; Jesus obeyed through a tree. Adam sinned in a garden; Jesus gave himself to God in a garden. There’s a lot of other such symbology, which is really awesome to read about.

But none of that gives the slightest indication of Mariology in the early church fathers!

Were the Early Church Fathers Catholic?

I have to suppose that if you are Protestant, and you have major objections to the Lord’s Supper as being more than symbolic, you could react and call the early church fathers Catholic. Ignatius calls the bread and wine the "medicine of immortality." Justin says that Christians received the meal as more than mere bread and wine.

Otherwise, I’m at a loss as to how anyone reading the 2nd century fathers could count them Catholic. There’s not a hint of it.

Even infant baptism isn’t mentioned–at least not specifically. It has to be read into a passing comment by Irenaeus about those who are born again, a list that includes infants. On the other hand, Justin—before Irenaeus—says that the apostles taught that baptism was a new birth since we had no choice in our natural birth, being too young to decide for ourselves. Tertullian—after Irenaeus—says that rushing children before they’re young enough to answer for themselves is a bad idea.

Someone needs to say that the early church fathers were not Catholic.

More importantly, someone needs to say that attending a Roman Catholic congregation will not teach you about God’s ways, will not give you a real family, God’s family, that the new covenant promises (though most Protestant churches won’t, either; a new Gospel, which is nothing but the apostles’ old one, is needed), and will not provide the strength you need to continue as self-forsaking disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Our call is that those who obey the Gospel of Jesus—that those who hear would forsake their own lives to follow Jesus Christ together—would quit attending clubs with weekly meetings and would join together into one family, dependent upon the Spirit of God as their guide and teacher, and that we could forget about denominations, which are nothing more than fleshly divisions, and forget about the rule of a pompous prelate in a faraway land.

Posted in Church, Gospel, History, Roman Catholic & Orthodox, Unity | Tagged , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Things as I See Them

Posted on 09/28/2010 by Paul Pavao

I mentioned in the last post that I would be asking y’all to help me write a book.

Are you willing to do that?

It’s working title is Things as I See Them. I have three chapters and an introduction up at my Christian History site (link takes you straight to introduction to book).

Thank you for looking at it and for any input you may have!

By the way, I wrote the introduction and the chapters on the Gospel and the Church one day, and I wrote the chapter on the Word of God on another day. So there’s only 2 days of work into it right now. I’m planning on working on this with you if you’ll help me!

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Doctrines of Demons

Posted on 09/22/2010 by Paul Pavao

I spent yesterday starting another book. I wrote a chapter and a half, and a finished the 2nd chapter this morning (rough draft only).

I’d like to get your help in writing that book, but I have to set some things up to make that happen. So hopefully, telling you how you can help me with that will be a tomorrow blog.

Today, I want to share 2 paragraphs from an email I sent.

Just to think about.

First …

Lead-in or Introduction

The email was about the fact that "sound doctrine," according to Scripture, involves things like the older men being reverent, dignified, sensible and sound in love, faith, and perseverance and the older women teaching the younger women how to love their husbands and raise their children.

That’s from Titus 2. Read it sometime and note that it starts by saying that these are the things that pertain to "sound doctrine."

So, here was my 2 paragraph comment at the end of my little dissertation.

2 Paragraphs To Chew or Choke On


How many Christians are there that want to live in obedience to Christ, and they get along so well when they talk about Christ and his commands? Then, as soon as they get on their churches’ pet issues … boom, they’re divided.

So then 2 people that really want to obey Christ go their separate ways so that each can fellowship with people who don’t want to obey Christ but do agree with them on the stupid, putrescent doctrines that demons taught to their godless denomination.

Example

I’ll give you an example in the comment section so that this post stays short. It only takes a bite of meat to choke a person. No sense loading up the whole pork chop.

Posted in Church, Holiness, Modern Doctrines, Unity | 4 Comments

Assumptions

Posted on 09/19/2010 by Paul Pavao

Today, I read where one more person claimed Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans as nobler in mind than the Thessalonians because they searched the Scriptures to test what Paul was saying.

It’s not true. Here’s the verse:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

That’s the KJV. I’m using it because I have it on my computer. It won’t read any differently in any other version (except maybe a paraphrase).

The Bereans were commended for receiving the Word with all readiness of mind!

The Thessalonians rejected the Word; the Bereans received it. Acts is all about people receiving the Word. When they do, it is like a seed planted inside of them, and it grows into a full knowledge of how to follow God, so that all of them, from the least to the greatest, would know him (Heb. 8:11).

Yes, they also examined the Scriptures to see if what he was saying could really be true. But they were not commended for doing this. They were commended for receiving the Word.

The Pharisees searched the Scriptures daily, too, but they are not commended by Christ, they are rebuked by him.

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

I didn’t use the KJV here because it has this verse wrong. It translates the verse as a command: "Search the Scriptures." The context makes it clear that’s not what Christ was saying, and more modern translations translate it as above. (I always make sure that a translation I choose is supported by multiple versions.)

What’s the difference between the Pharisees and the Bereans?

The difference is which of them were prepared to receive the Word readily. The Bereans were, and the Pharisees were not. Both searched the Scriptures, but one group was prepared to receive the Word, and the other was prepared to reject it.

Thus, the Bereans were not commended for testing Paul by the Scriptures; they were commended for being open to the Word.

Bonus Assumption

While we’re on things that just get repeated over and over but aren’t accurate, let’s do Romans 2:4 as well.

Or do you despise the wealth of God’s kindness, tolerance, and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads to repentance?

When we modern Christians quote it, we emphasize kindness: "It is the kindness of God that leads to repentance."

In other words, we use this verse to teach that if we want to produce repentance in people, then we need to show them the kindness of God, not his severity or judgment.

But the context makes it clear that Paul is emphasizing repentance, not kindness: "The kindness of God leads you to repentance."

In other words, the kindness, tolerance, and patience that God has shown you is not a reason for you to harden and continue in sin. God has been showing you kindness in order to give you time to repent.

The kindness of God is not the only thing that leads to repentance. Ps. 38, for example, is all about David repenting when God was angry at him. We all know that the Lord chastens those whom he loves.

Anyway, you can read the verses leading up to Rom. 2:4, and the context makes it clear what the verse is talking about.

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

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