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

The Chicken or the Egg?

Posted on 08/19/2010 by Paul Pavao

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

(As you may be able to tell, this is one of those off topic posts I occasionally put up.)

As it turns out, my children think the answer is simple: If you believe in evolution, the egg came first; if you reject evolution, it’s the chicken.

If you take Genesis literally, and God created all birds on the 5th day, then the chicken has to come before the egg because the egg would require a chicken to incubate it.

If you don’t take Genesis literally, and you believe in evolution, then the egg came first because it was produced by something that was almost a chicken, and then the chicken came out of the egg.

Of course, I should be saying, "If you believe in evolution, then you believe the egg came first; if you reject evolution, you believe it’s the chicken."

In this case, what’s true is true no matter what you believe. We can argue all we want about whether Genesis is literal or evolution is true, but our belief won’t change the truth an iota.

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Exhort, Encourage, Testify:The Appearance of Paul, Part V

Posted on 08/18/2010 by Paul Pavao

It takes me too long to get around to finishing series I started.

This may be the most important blog I’ve ever written.

If you DO this, it will change your life and the lives of all those with whom you have regular contact.

I’m sorry if the post is boring, or isn’t broke up enough, or is hard to skim. I try to write interesting things that are easy to skim, but this is worth working your way through!

I started on a series on the appearance of the apostle Paul, and I only got through 3 parts before I needed to write on other things. As a result, it’s been over 3 weeks since the last one.

Now I’m skipping part 4 because I like part 5 better. I’ll do part 4 some other time.

Today’s Scripture

You know how we exhorted, consoled, and testified to every one of you, like a father does to his children. (1 Thess. 2:11)

God’s Worker

Are you one of God’s workers? Are you one of those that labors among the brethren, takes the lead, and admonishes? (1 Thess. 5:12).

Then this lesson, like the others in this series, is one you’d better learn.

Exhorting

Paul chose some pretty general words in today’s verse. Of the three verbs—exhort, console, and testify to—"exhort" is the most general.

I love the word exhort. I learned what it means the same way all of us learned to speak English. I listened to it being used.

The Greek word for "exhort," in 1 Thess 2:11, is parakaleo. It is used 109 times in the New Testament. It’s two noun forms, parakletos and paraklesis, are also in the New Testament 34 times. I looked up all 143 occurrences.

It’s translated with about 10 different English words, depending on your translation.

It’s used in all kinds of senses. There’s places where he’s clearly talking about comforting someone, and there’s other places where he’s clearly referring to rebuking someone. In other places, it’s clearly asking or pleading.

The noun form is used 4 times of the Holy Spirit, and it is translated "Comforter," but it could just as well be exhorter.

The noun form is also used of Jesus in 1 Jn. 2:1, where it’s translated advocate. I’ve read that parakletos can mean defense lawyer, though it doesn’t in 1 Jn. 2:1. (You don’t need a defense lawyer with God. He already loves you and wishes the best for you.)

Being an Exhorter

I came up with one overriding definition for parakaleo after seeing it used 143 times:

To use words to get someone to do something good

You can do that by comforting, begging, or admonishing, but in the end if you are "parakaleo-ing" someone, then you are trying to get them to do something.

Paul did it all the time, without fail.

Watch, and remember that for 3 years I did not stop warning everyone night and day with tears. (Acts 20:31)

What do you think would happen to you if you were encouraged, warned, admonished, and comforted every day, night and day, with tears?

Don’t you think that would move you? Give you strength? Help you believe?

Paul did.

Let me give you another one. Do you believe that smoking is bad and that people who smoke are foolish?

Very few people believed that in the 60’s. Smoking was manly and sexy both.

What changed?

What changed is that the US government ran ads for 20 years. They warned us night and day through our fears, and the opinion of over 200 million people was changed.

Exhortation Examples in the Scriptures

It’s not just in Acts 20:31 and 1 Thess. 2:11 that this is said. It’s mentioned repeatedly …

I will not be negligent to always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are established in the present truth. (2 Pet. 1:12)

[Paul and Barnabas] returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. (Acts 14:21-22)

Consoling

The next word Paul uses, consoling, is also a wide word.

The Strong’s definition of paramutheomai is …

To speak to … whether by way of admonition and incentive or to calm and console.

In other words, no matter how you have to do it, get them to follow God.

You can admonish, give incentive, or console them, but talk to them and get them to walk in the commands of Jesus Christ.

It’s the very commission, Jesus gave the apostles …

Go therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. (Matt. 28:19-20)

Testifying

The last word is translated "charge" by the KJV and "implore" by the NASB, but Strong’s and the note in the NASB say that the word means to testify.

So Paul uses two very general words that can mean admonish, comfort, or beg, and then he adds testimony.

In other words, tell them how it’s worked for you.

It’s the example we were given by the Israelites …

These words, which I command you, shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children. You will talk about them …

  • … while you sit in your house
  • … when you walk along the way
  • … when you lay down
  • … and when you get up.

You shall secure them to your hand as a sign, and they shall be hung between your eyes. You shall write them on the posts of your house and on your gates. (Deut. 6:6-9)

Do you think God wanted us to be consumed with his words?

Paul was consumed with them. He talked about them night and day with tears, and he reminded, pleaded, implored, encouraged, consoled, exhorted, and rebuked the disciples so that they would be followers of Jesus Christ, doers of his Word.

Like a Father

It’s not just workers in the house of God who should be doing this.

Paul says this sort of exhorting, consoling, and testifying is what a father does with his children. It’s part of training them and bringing them up in the way they should go.

Or were you confused into thinking that training your children means just spanking them when they do something wrong?

Training involves positive teaching, correction, and encouragement, not just punishment when something wrong is done.

In fact, I think it would be fair to say that punishment is a rather minor part of training, reserved for the uncommitted learner, who needs encouragement and warning at least as much and probably more than discipline.

What About Me?

I was going to title this section "What About Us," but, hey, let’s pick on me, not you.

I’m a father and a worker in the house of God, and this post is horribly convicting to me.

Is this how I father? Is this how I deal with people in the house of God?

Sometimes. I could make excuses for myself. I could talk about Bible studies I’ve led with my children present. I could talk about telling them stories while I drive. I can talk about lectures I’ve given them on how to live life and what their life should be for.

But the fact is, I don’t even come close to "night and day with tears."

I don’t talk about the commands of Christ when I’m sitting down, walking, entering, leaving, getting up, and going to bed. I don’t have them tied on my hands and forehead, nor written on the posts of my house.

I don’t believe we’re supposed to literally write Jesus’ commands on our hands and forehead.

God has something better for us. Live for Christ and exhort, console, and testify so much that every time someone sees you, it might as well be written on your forehead; so that every time someone goes through your door or sees you along the road they think of Christ because that’s what you’re about.

So I have to close now and write a couple of these Scriptures down on Post-It notes so that I can hang them on my mirror and bookshelf at home.

I have a lot of work to do …

Posted in Holiness, Leadership | Tagged , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel

Posted on 08/12/2010 by Paul Pavao

I think Romans 1:16 is the key to unlocking all the deep secrets of the letter to the Romans.

In that verse Paul says he is not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ. But why does he say that?

There are three reasons he says that. Two are directly stated, and one is implied.

  • Because he was being questioned about his Gospel.. (This one is implied.)
  • Because it is the power of God to salvation.
  • Because in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith.

If you understand those three things, you will not be confused about Romans any more, nor ever again use it to justify unrighteous living.

Let’s go backwards through those issues …

In the Gospel the Righteousness of God is Revealed

Due to misunderstandings that have prevailed since the Reformation (not during; Luther and Calvin did not make this mistake), many Protestants believe that Romans is about going to heaven without having to do any good works.

This contradicts the main point of Romans, which is that Paul’s Gospel is nothing to be ashamed of. The reason it’s nothing to be ashamed of is because the righteousness of God is revealed in it … and that from faith to faith.

In other words, when people believe Paul’s Gospel, the righteousness of God is seen in their lives. That’s how it’s revealed.

As Paul says later:

For [the Jews], being ignorant of God’s righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. (10:3)

God’s righteousness is revealed in those who believe and thus submit themselves to it. It’s a righteousness that is different from our own righteousness, but it is a real, tangible, visible, and experienced righteousness, not merely an imputed one.

The apostle John tells us that only those who actually practice the righteousness of God can claim to have imputed righteousness.

Little children, don’t let anyone deceive you. He that does righteousness is righteous just as [Christ] is righteous. (1 Jn. 3:7)

Notice that John warns us not to be deceived about this! He’s not the only one who warns us …

Don’t Misunderstand This

It’s amazing that people can read Romans 1:16-17 and think that it could possibly mean that you can live however you want and go to heaven. The very next verse—yes, verse 18— says …

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.

After warning that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against people who hold the truth in unrighteousness, do you really think that Paul would then spend the rest of the letter telling unrighteous people that they’re going to heaven as long as they believe the truth?

Or maybe you believe that Paul disagrees with John when John tells us that only those who do righteousness are righteous as Christ is righteous?

Paul doesn’t disagree with John. He issues almost exactly the same warning …

Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived … (1 Cor. 6:9)

Revealed Righteousness

After spending verses 19 through 32 castigating those who hold the truth in unrighteousness, Paul then starts on the Jews who oppose his Gospel, upbraiding them for their hypocrisy …

Therefore you are inexcusable, oh man, whichever of you judges someone else … for you that judge do the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them who commit such things. Or do you think, oh man, you who judge those who do such things yet do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? (2:1-3)

The fact is that yes, a lot of us Protestants think that we can do the same things as the world and yet escape the judgment of God.

Paul has something to say to such people …

After your hardness and impenitent heart you store up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will repay every man according to his deeds. (2:5-6)

This is not the only place Paul says this …

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things [in context, this is uncleanness, immorality, and greed] the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore, do not be partakers with them. (Eph. 5:6-7)

Clear enough, don’t you think?

And he even issues another warning not to be deceived about this. It’s as though he knew what was coming.

The Power of God to Salvation

The Gospel is the power of God to salvation. As we have seen, it is a salvation that can be seen.

Later in Romans, Paul gives a very clear—almost amazingly clear—description of salvation. We miss it because we don’t understand it, and some of us simply don’t believe it, but it’s a wonderful description of just what the power of God to salvation is.

In Romans 7, Paul describes what we need to be saved from. We are powerless to obey God. We may love righteousness, but we can’t perform it.

Jesus died to change that.

Romans 7 explains that the Law was powerless to change that. It could not empower us to obedience.

But Jesus can …

For what the Law could not do, God did. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, as an offering for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh so that the righteous requirement of God might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (Rom. 8:3-4)

Notice something there. Jesus’ death accomplished something, but it only accomplished it in those who do not walk according to the flesh but choose a spiritual walk instead.

What did he mean by that? Did he mean that the choice of which to do was up to us?

Just a few verses later, he answers those questions.

So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh to live according to the flesh, for if we live according to the flesh we will die. But if by the Spirit we put to death the deeds of the flesh, then we will live. (Rom. 8:12-13)

Those sure seem to say something clearly, don’t they? Do you really want to bank your hope on the possibility that the choice of which to do is entirely up to you?

Again, this isn’t the only place where Paul says this. Look up Gal. 6:7-9. Peter says it, too. Try 2 Peter 1:5-11 for that.

Sin will not have power over you, for you are not under Law, but under grace. (Rom. 6:14)

That verse sounds a lot like Romans 8:3-4 that we just looked at, doesn’t it?

Romans 8:3-4 is a description of real grace. Grace is not a license to sin. Grace is the power of God delivering you from the power of sin so that you can make the choices given to you in Romans 8:12-13; Gal. 6:7-9; and 2 Pet. 1:5-11.

You can find a terrific description of the grace that brings salvation in Titus 2:11-14.

Answering Jewish Questions About Paul’s Gospel

Romans is all about Paul defending his Gospel.

He gets to drop that by chapter twelve. In the first eleven chapters he dispenses with any objection that any lover of the Law could have to his Gospel, and then in chapter twelve and afterward he gets to move on to exhortation and encouragement.

3:8 specifically says that negative things were being said about Paul and his Gospel, but the whole tenor of the first eleven chapters makes it clear that he’s defending himself.

Romans 1:16 is the beginning of that: "I am not ashamed of the Gospel."

But note, the reason he is not ashamed, as we saw above, is because the Gospel is producing righteousness. It is producing people whose lives are to be admired; not like the Jews who are powerless to do good (re: all of ch. 2).

What About Me?

Now comes the biggest question of all. What about you? What about me?

Have you believed the Gospel and found no change? Has the Gospel failed to be the power of God for salvation to you?

Gratefulness for the death of Christ is not going to be sufficient. It is by the Spirit that we put to death the deeds of the body, not by gratefulness. The death of Christ is effective for those who "do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."

How do you obtain that power?

Truly, it is only by believing, but is what you have believed the truth?

Jesus said that you cannot be his disciple unless you hate family, possessions, and even your own life (Luke 14:26-33).

You have to despise everything and everyone and follow Christ. You do this not by treating them badly, but by making Christ your sole influence in life.

This is the Gospel. Jesus doesn’t know about another one.

That Gospel will bring you the Spirit, and you will receive the Spirit just for believing it.

Know, however, that Jesus is serious about that Gospel. He is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey him (Heb. 5:9).

Will you become his disciple? Will you forsake everything to have him as Teacher, Guide, and Lord?

Everything else comes later. Theology doesn’t matter. Christ will teach you your theology. Will you follow the One who is risen, who is Lord, and who will judge everyone on the last day according to what they have done?

Not of Works

Some of you reading this may be wondering, "What about Paul’s statements that salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done?" (Tit. 3:5).

I can’t address that every time I teach from the Scriptures. Overthrowing modern traditions and confused Bible interpretation can be a time-consuming process.

I have a number of pages addressing that issue. You might try Christian Salvation, Sola Fide, or Not by Faith Alone.

If you’re having a negative reaction to my entitling a page "Not by Faith Alone," I want to remind you that’s a Scripture quote (James 2:24).

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

The Bible and a Closed Canon:(Should There Only Be 66 Books?)

Posted on 08/11/2010 by Paul Pavao

One of these days I’m going to have time to do justice to the series I was doing on the appearance of Paul from 1 Thessalonians 2. There’s one post on exhortation I really want to get to, but I have to have a good amount of time to write it.

I got another email from the Eastern Orthodox fellow I wrote to a couple days ago. It made me realize there’s some very un-Protestant ideas I hold to.

What I’m about to write is not going to be very popular because most Protestants prefer to trust their intellect than to trust God.

There’s 2 reasons for this:

  • Protestants greatly overestimate their ability to understand something as spiritual as the Scriptures.
  • Protestants greatly underestimate God’s ability to reveal his will to men.

1. Having an official canon of Scripture is bad

It’s not historical.

Even as late as A.D. 399, Augustine wrote …

Among the canonical Scriptures [the skillful interpreter] will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. (On Christian Doctrine II:8:12)

While most of the books we have in our Bible were accepted by all churches, some were in dispute. Other books that didn’t make our canon, like The Shepherd of Hermas and First Clement, were accepted by some churches.

The Apocrypha, subject of much dispute between Catholics and Protestants, were in dispute until modern times. Even Martin Luther quotes the Wisdom of Solomon as though it were Scripture.

It leads to a "magic book" mentality.

Protestants today honor the Bible almost to the point of idolatry. They won’t set another book on top of it, and they’d certainly never toss one or set a coffee cup on it.

Protestants would never allow anyone to say that the Bible has contradictions or scientific errors in it, nor would they ever acknowledge disbelieving anything in the Bible.

Nonetheless, a majority have never read the whole thing. There are dozens of verses no self-respecting Protestant would ever repeat. It’s okay if the Bible says it, but we shouldn’t!

(For example: God will give eternal life to those who pursue immortality by patiently continuing to do good—Rom. 2:6-7. Or, there’s the well-known, "so we see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone," which is, as you may or may not know, the only occurrence of the phrase "faith alone" in the whole Bible.)

We use the Bible like a magic book. We proclaim verses in defense of our traditions as though they were incantations from a spell book, driving away evil beliefs. Other verses—the ones that directly contradict the things we believe—we ignore. They are true, we acknowledge, but we can give no practical way in which they are true, nor can we ever say them ourselves.

Not having a closed canon of Scripture means that the faith has to be handed down, as it was meant to be. It means that we have to find our own answers to many problems of life, guided by the Holy Spirit, as one of the undisputed books of Scripture commands:

I have written these things to you about those that are trying to seduce you. The anointing you have received from the Holy One remains in you, and you don’t need anyone to teach you. As that same anointing teaches you everything, and is true and not a lie, so you will remain in him, just as it has taught you. (1 Jn. 2:26-27)

Paul agrees:

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

Oh, wait. I’m not supposed to say that. That’s one of the verses we don’t believe. It’s only true when Paul says it. We’re not allowed to repeat it.

Protestants Overestimate Their Ability To Understand Something as Spiritual as the Scriptures

This should follow from what I’ve written above.

The very fact that we have Scriptures we don’t believe, don’t agree with, and can’t repeat, all the while saying we do believe them, should be enough to prove that our intellectual approach is failing badly at understanding the Scriptures.

Our incredible, widespread division ought to be proof enough that we are not able to understand the Scriptures.

But we don’t get it.

The Scriptures were not meant to fuel our debate. The Scriptures were meant to equip us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16). They were meant to get us to obey Christ.

Not perform religious rituals … obey Christ.

Have you ever paid attention to what you’ll be judged for?

Look at those Scriptures you claim to believe (but mostly don’t; you believe your traditions instead). They say you’ll be judged by whether you fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and visited the sick and imprisoned. Other verses say "good works," leaving things kind of general. 2 Peter 1 adds things like virtue, knowledge, goodness, patience, kindness, and love. (And I highly suspect that "knowledge" is a knowledge of what’s good, not a knowledge of systematic theology.)

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

What’s my point? Some new doctrine different from Protestant doctrine.

No, my point is that Christianity is all about exalting and obeying Christ. That’s what the Scriptures teach; they don’t teach something else.

In fact, they don’t teach anything else.

Protestants Greatly Underestimate God’s Ability To Reveal His Will to Men

Protestants—in general, I’m not speaking of all of them—don’t trust God.

Protestants really prefer to trust their interpretation of the Bible. They figure that if you start following the Spirit, being led by God, as the Scripture commands, then you’ll go astray.

Figure that one out.

The Scriptures—that set of 66 books you say you believe—say that if you follow the Anointing, it will be true and not a lie.

God is able to make his will known.

If we gave any indication—an honest indication—that we cared what God had to say, rather than saying the Scriptures are wrong wherever they disagree with our infallible Protestant traditions, then we’d find God has myriads of ways of getting our attention.

In the 1st century, back when John was on the Isle of Patmos, he actually appeared to John and sent letters to seven local churches.

Wouldn’t you like to get a letter from Jesus?

No, I don’t mean the Scriptures. Those are written to everyone. I mean a letter just for your church and its situation.

We might see things like that if we gave any indication we cared.

But as long as someone can read us a Bible verse telling us that the church is the pillar and support of the truth and we can reject that Bible verse because we believe the Bible is the pillar and support of the truth, then why will God speak to us? If we reject 1 Tim. 3:15, which we claim is the Word of God, and warn people against Rom. 8:14 because they might go astray, then why would God bother speaking through a human by letter or by prophecy? If we reject 1 Timothy 3:15 and Romans 8:14, then we’re certainly going to reject the letter or the prophecy.

Final Note

Well, that’s an abrupt ending. This post isn’t very organized. The paragraphs in each section don’t all fit the section they’re in.

What I wrote is true, though. I hope you’ll look at it without being offended by my generalizations about Protestants. Obviously, those things are not true of all Protestants, nor even all denominations of Protestants.

The magic book mentality, though, is pretty pervasive in conservative Protestant circles.

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

Eastern Orthodox Church

Posted on 08/09/2010 by Paul Pavao

The same day I was asked about the Roman Catholic Church, I got an email about the Eastern Orthodox Church as well.

This was my response to the Orthodox person.

Note: The Eastern Orthodox Church, described too simply, is the Roman Catholic Church of the Eastern world.

Eastern Orthodoxy

At the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 (yes, 1700 years ago), 3 "patriarchs" were set up with authority over whole nations: in Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. Constantinople was added within a century.

When the western Roman empire fell, the Roman patriarch was the only one in barbarian Europe, and he ended up declaring himself the sole authority over Christianity on earth.

The other 3—with the excommunicated Alexandrian patriarch replaced by a Russian one—lead the Eastern Orthodox Church to this day.

The Eastern Orthodox Church and Historic Christianity

Thank you for writing me.

I have considered the Eastern Orthodox church. In fact, I was asked to leave a small church of which I was an elder for opposing their joining the Russian Orthodox Church. I have also attended (just once) an Assyrian Orthodox Church and spent several hours talking with its priest.

The funny part of that is we still make jokes (friendly, pleasant ones) about that day because he had 3 very large turtles in his back yard and he was a trekkie (as in Star Trek trekkie).

The primary reason I can’t go Orthodox–or any other denomination–is complicated.

The simple version of it is that I don’t believe in a church other than the local church.

The saints, those who are sold out to Christ, are supposed to be family to each other in their local area. Yes, the local churches should be in fellowship with one another and correcting one another, but there’s nothing apostolic about regional or national church leaders.

There are secondary reasons, the biggest one being that I believe the veneration of icons to be idolatry, but the primary one is the one I just gave.

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

Confused About Christianity?: Titus 2, Real Christianity, and the Pastoral Epistles

Posted on 08/08/2010 by Paul Pavao

Confused about Christianity?

Let’s wipe out all the confusion in one blog post.

Yes, deliverance from all the competing doctrines of Christianity, and a straightforward, you-will-agree-with-this, Biblical description of the Gospel.

Are you ready?

Titus 2:1-10: Sifting Down to Sound Doctrine

I talk about Titus 2:1-10 all the time. It says what sound doctrine is.

It’s not the sort of thing you’d expect …

Sound Doctrine According to Titus Two

  • Older men should be serious, sensible, self-controlled and good at faith, love, and patience
  • Older women should live holy, avoid drunkenness, and teach good things
  • Younger women should love their husbands and children, be chaste, good, and keep a good home.
  • Young men should be serious and sensible
  • Titus himself should be an example of good works and teach this doctrine in sincerity without changing it.
  • Employees should obey their employers, please them, not talk back, and not steal.

Is that what you’ve heard sound doctrine is? Is that on your church’s statement of faith?

Maybe we have some things to change.

Before we get back to the rest of Titus 2, let’s talk about what sound doctrine isn’t …

1 Timothy 6:3: What Sound Doctrine Is NOT

This blog’s title mentions the pastoral epistles. All this wonderful, freeing, confusion-crushing information comes from Titus and Timothy.

In 1 Timothy 6:3 Paul tells Timothy that everyone ought to consent to "sound words." (Whatever English word your Bible uses, the Greek word is the same as Titus 2:1. I’m using sound in both cases.)

He also says that everyone ought to to consent to the doctrine which is according to godliness.It’s probably not too hard to figure out he’s talking about the sound teaching found it Titus 2:1-10. Be serious, live holy, love, be patient, obey your employers, love your children, etc.

When we get stuck on other things …

Which would be the things modern Christians are stuck on …

And we call those things sound doctrine …

Then …

  • We are proud
  • We don’t know anything
  • We have a mental illness causing us to obsess about questions and arguments. (Really, that’s how the Greek reads. The NASB calls it a morbid obsession.)
  • We produce envy, strife, suspiciousness, slander and numerous other things

So, let me ask …

Doesn’t practical experience prove Paul right? Aren’t we obsessed to the point that it could be called psychopathic with arguing about questionable issues, while we ignore patience, faith, raising children, and being sensible of mind in following Christ? Isn’t the result envy, strife, suspiciousness, and slander?

I’d like to suggest that this is what Paul said it was …

The result of ignoring sound doctrine.

2 Timothy 3:16-17: The Whole Point of the Bible

Let’s keep this section short.

The point of the Bible is to equip you for good works.

That’s what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, right?

Titus 2:11-14: What Grace Is and Why Jesus Died

According to THE BIBLE, grace—the real grace that brings salvation—teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly.

According to THE BIBLE, Jesus died to purify for himself a people that would be zealous for good works.

That’s what it says, right? Am I missing something?

What Grace Is NOT

Grace is not an excuse for loose living. Grace is not a reason to reject the admonition of your brothers and sisters in Christ.

"Are you the Holy Spirit? Why are you rebuking me? Remember, WE’RE UNDER GRACE."

How many times have you heard that nonsense.

"Yeah, exactly, brother. That’s why I’m rebuking you. Grace has destroyed sin’s power over you (Rom. 6:14), so I know when I admonish you, you have the power to obey."

Last Little Bit

I hope I’m not exaggerating when I say today’s post has the power to change your life.

The Bible isn’t written to solve the useless issues in your systematic theologies. It’s written to equip you for good works!!!

No wonder none of us have been able to resolve all those doctrinal things denominations fight over.

We’re supposed to ignore them!

And get busy being those people that are zealous for good works.

This is a faithful saying, and I want you to constantly affirm these things, that those who have believed in God would be careful to maintain good works. (Tit. 3:14)

‘Nuff said.

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

The Roman Catholic Church and the Gospel

Posted on 08/07/2010 by Paul Pavao

I got an email from a Roman Catholic yesterday. It was very nice this time. Most of the vitriolic (um, harsh and negative) letters I receive are from Catholics. This one was very kind.

On the other hand, he asked me to go view a video that would set me straight. I didn’t go view it. I already know that even the best RC apologists go quickly to deceit when appealing to the early fathers on behalf of their church.

But the issue is much simpler than what the father say.

Here’s the email I sent back; it applies to Protestants, too …

Why I Reject the Authority of the Roman Catholic Church

And Why You Should, Too

Thank you for your kind letter.

I really can’t back off on my stance on the Roman Catholic Church. I was raised Catholic. You may be surprised at my biggest objection to the RCC.

Back in the 4th century, the church began to let people in who had made no commitment to Christ. This is true for the vast majority of Roman Catholic members. They are not taught the Gospel, that Jesus Christ calls people to deny themselves, take up their cross, forsake their possessions, live separate from the world, and join themselves to the family of Christ.

Protestants don’t do much better.

Either way, Christ, the apostles, and the early churches knew only one Gospel, leaving the old life to become a part of the family of God that cares nothing for the things of this world.

The RCC doesn’t teach that to its members. Protestants don’t teach that much, either, but then, Protestants don’t claim that to have a worldwide leader who is the vicar of Christ on earth.

I want those who are wholly committed to Christ to join themselves to one another and quit fellowshipping with nominal Christians, who, according to Scripture, are no Christians at all. And I certainly want them to reject the RCC as an authoritative representative of God when they are telling over a billion people that they are in fellowship with God because of rituals while they live lives that testify against the Gospel of Christ. (See Luke 14:26-33 and note the “cannots” in there.)

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

My Son Goes to Kenya, Africa

Posted on 08/06/2010 by Paul Pavao

My son Noah leaves for a 6-week mission trip to Kenya, Africa on Tuesday.

He’ll be blogging about it the whole trip, and he’s started already …

Noah in Africa

My oldest sons, Zerubbabel and Noah
That’s Zube on the left, Noah on the right

 

Posted in missions | 2 Comments

Doing Hard Things

Posted on 07/31/2010 by Paul Pavao

I ended up going through some web sites this morning, looking at what others have to say about following Christ. There was some encouraging things …

and then there was this one really convicting one …

I thought I’d share it with you. For me, it’s not the part about misusing the phrase "do hard things"; I’m not doing that.

It’s the part about being my kids’ manager and mentor so that they are on the road to doing hard things. Unfortunately, I’m not doing that, either. (But I am mentally kicking that lazy part of myself out of its rest …)

From ClipArtConnection.com with permission
Get out of bed!

You can read it at The Rebelution, a blog you will never go wrong reading.

 

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , | Leave a comment