Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Back Pain, and Trigger Point Therapy

Posted on 07/06/2010 by Paul Pavao

I don’t normally write health blogs, but health is an interest of mine, especially muscle and joint pain. I don’t normally write blogs to sell things, but this is something everyone needs to know about.

Yesterday on the radio I heard a lady say she had quit her job due to Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Today National Public Radio reported that a well-done scientific study indicates that glucosamine doesn’t help with back pain. They also reported that 20 million Americans suffer from chronic lower back pain, and 5 million are trying glucosamine to treat it.

I can’t bear knowing that people are suffering in ignorance.

Why a Great Supplement Like Glucosamine Doesn’t Work on Back Pain

Glucosamine is awesome for your knees, but there’s a reason that it doesn’t help back pain any better than a sugar pill does.

Chronic lower back pain is almost never caused by your spine. It’s almost always caused by muscles. (I’ll give you a reference to a thoroughly researched scientific paper for that as soon as my broken computer comes back with all it’s bookmarks on it.)

So is Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

It is completely crazy that people are getting dangerous and expensive surgery, plus leaving their jobs, over a condition that can be cured most of the time WITH A FREE MASSAGE!!!.

Well, with a bunch of free massages.

Julie Donnelly is one of many people who treat back pain—and a lot of other joint pain—with trigger point therapy. IT WORKS!

She has a book on Carpal Tunnel Syndrome called, oddly enough, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. It tells you how to look for the muscles causing the pain in the nerve that goes through your carpal tunnel.

On my wife, the muscle turned out to be in the side of her neck. Two days, four massages, and she didn’t have Carpal Tunnel Syndrome anymore.

I did the massages, not a professional. Julie Donnelly teaches you how to treat yourself … LOTS cheaper that way!

Lower Back Pain

As for your back, you really have to do exercises as well as trigger point therapy. Even a lot of chiropractic work fails because they put your tailbone and vertebrae in the right spot, but then your misaligned muscles pulls your spine out of alignment again. So you become dependent on your chiropractor.

Her book on joint pain, which includes back pain, is called Pain-Free Living.

If you have lower back pain, you’ll have to wait till I write a web page on lower back exercises or research some one your own, and you need to do the trigger point therapy. Especially if the pain is also in your hips.

Upper Back Pain

If you have upper back pain, the trigger point therapy will fix it almost every time … and quickly.

How to Get Julie Donnelly’s Books

The Carpal Tunnel Syndrome book is very inexpensive. The Pain-Free Living book runs at typical bookstore prices.

This link—Julie Donnelly’s Julstro System—will send you to her order page. However, you ought to read what she’s written on joint pain and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome before you order. Just follow the links at her site.

Yes, I get a commission if you use this link. Thank you very much.

I’m telling you, though, if you have Carpal Tunnel Syndrome or back pain, you’ll be thanking me.

Purpose of This Page

I did not write this page because I’m trying to make money. I wrote this page because it kills me to hear people say they quit their job over Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, and I know very well that at least 60% of them, probably more, wouldn’t have it if they knew how to treat it.

 

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

The Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians: Bishops and Ecclesiastical Authority

Posted on 07/05/2010 by Paul Pavao

"Bishops and Ecclesiastical Authority."

Sorry for the pompous sounding name of this post. I wanted to pull in the liturgical folk who might be searching for a topic like this.

We’re going to tackle Ignatius of Antioch’s comments about bishops, control, and church authority in today’s post. And we’re going to tackle it hard.

What Church Leaders Have Authority from God?

It’s been too long that those who have usurped Christ’s authority have claimed the church’s authority to do so.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches have claimed that they are the only churches with leaders authorized by God. They’ve cited Matthew 16 as the authority for their claim, but they’ve cited Ignatius and other church fathers in order to interpret Matthew 16.

Let’s see if there’s a different way to look at the comments of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, about bishops of the churches in general …

I’m printing just the last part of chapter one of Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians, since I’ve already covered the first 2/3 of it on this blog and in my Early Church History Ezine.

Ignatius to the Ephesians, chapter one, around A.D. 110

I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love and your bishop in the flesh, whom I ask you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. Blessed be the One who has counted you worthy to be given such an excellent bishop.

Repetitiveness

We’ll have to go over this subject again and again as we go through the things Ignatius wrote because he wrote about bishops, their authority, and our need to submit to them over and over again.

This particular reference simply praises Onesimus, bishop of the Ephesians, but in other comments he tries to give them immense authority, a habit that caused John Calvin to deny that so eminent an authority as Ignatius even wrote these letters.

For example, in chapter four of the letter we’re looking at, he writes …

It is fitting that you should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which you do. For your justly renowned presbytery [i.e., the body of elders], worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp.

It doesn’t stop there, and it doesn’t take much searching to find such comments by Ignatius. They’re in every letter, multiple times, except the letter to Rome (Why?).

The Authority of Ignatius

What Ignatius says matters. The Roman Catholics and Orthodox are right to point to Ignatius’ authority. He’s one of the earliest Christian writers outside the New Testament, having written in A.D. 107 or 116. He was bishop—head pastor, in modern parlance—of the apostle Paul’s home church—Antioch—and it’s likely that he was appointed to that position by an apostle.

The question is: why did he make all those comments about the authority of bishops? And further, why don’t we find such comments in other early writings?

The Situation of Ignatius

Imagine with me, if you will, that you are the head pastor of a thousand member church in Tulsa, Oklahoma. One day, several of your Sunday School teachers report some strange comments made by some of their students.

These are not just any comments. The students have suggested that the Word, the Light, and the Life mentioned in John chapter 1 are separate manifestations of the true God, each of which, at various times, rested on the purely human Jesus’ of Nazareth.

You know that Jesus is the Word, the Light, and the Life, but according to these deceived Sunday School students, your belief is a lie perpetrated by Jehovah, the false and ignorant God of the Jews.

Horrifying, isn’t it?

The following week, it gets worse. A young man who’s been visiting for four weeks comes up to you to thank you for baptizing him. Stunned, you ask what he’s talking about, only to find out that he’s been baptized by the same man who taught those Sunday School students the terrible heresies you heard about.

Incensed, you hunt the man down, speak to him, and run him down the road to infest some other church.

The next week, you find two more of your new people baptized. Worse, each was baptized at a separate house by two different men, both teaching the same heresies as the man you ran off.

Wouldn’t you immediately tell your church that there will be no more baptisms conducted without your approval or the approval of your board of elders? Wouldn’t you tell them that you would like to know exactly what’s being taught at Bible studies in people’s home, and then teach diligently against the heresies being spread by deceived men?

Ignatius was in that very position.

Ignatius and the Gnostics

Ignatius had men in his church and in other cities—who called themselves gnostics, or "knowing ones"—cities that were teaching that everything material was evil, and only spiritual things could be good. Thus, it was impossible that Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead because all material things—including Jesus’ body—are evil.

In fact, any God that made material things had to be evil too … or at least ignorant. Thus their rejection of Yahweh, the God of Israel.

Ignatius wanted these men stopped.

Ignatius and the Gnostic Solution

Ignatius’ solution was to do what you would have done as head pastor in the scenario above.

He ordered that nothing would go on without the knowledge and consent of the bishop. He wanted the gnostic schools shut down and the gnostic teachers silenced.

To do this he requested the people do nothing without first running it by the bishop.

He also showered praise on the bishops of the churches to whom he wrote, hoping to help instill trust and submission into the brothers.

Ignatius and the Authority of the Bishop

Does this mean that everything in the early church was done only with the authority of the bishop?

No. It means quite the opposite.

The reason the gnostics could get away with what they were getting away with is because people were used to doing things apart from the bishop, and the reason that Ignatius had to plead for the bishop to know and approve everything that was going on is because the bishop didn’t always know or approve of everything that was going on.

In other words, Ignatius was issuing strong, pleading commands in order to change the status quo and put a stop to the gnostics.

His commands are not a testimony to the way things were in the early churches but instead are a testimony to the way things were not.

This does not mean that a bishop does not have authority. It’s the Bible itself, in Hebrews 13:7 and 17 that says that we should submit to our leaders. We don’t need Ignatius to say it for us to know it’s true.

But it does mean that Ignatius was not setting an ecclesiastical pattern that we are obligated to follow. In fact, since his pattern was not set in place by the apostles, it is a good idea NOT to follow it—except possibly on a temporary basis to deal with heresies.

Purpose of Early Christian Writings

The writings of the early Christians should be read by us for the wonderful encouragement to holiness they are, but also so that we can learn what the apostles taught.

I read the early Christian writings, especially the ones from the second century. They can be a terrific insight into interpreting the Scriptures and understanding the mind of the apostles.

But we can’t replace apostolic commands with 2nd century commands!

What Should We Believe

As a temporary measure to stamp out heresy, it may be a good and godly idea to have the leading elder, head pastor, or bishop know everything that’s going on and be at every baptism.

That is not the practice of the apostles, though, so it should not be our general practice, either.

Despite the incredible importance of baptism—which Paul said would put us in Christ (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3-4), and which Peter said would save us (1 Pet. 3:21), providing we believe—the apostles let Philip, a non-apostle, baptize in Samaria (Acts 8:12-14), and Paul gave thanks to God that he let others baptize in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14-16).

When the apostles sent Barnabas to see what was going on among the Gentiles in Antioch, he never reported back to them! Instead, he went to Tarsus to get Paul to labor with him. Afterward, the church in Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas out without any apostolic sanction. There is no indication that Barnabas had ever reported back to the apostles even at that point.

Authority comes from God, not from apostolic succession. Who can deny the authority that Paul had when he went out on the authority of 5 prophets and teachers from Antioch?

It is one thing to put a temporary rule into place to help a congregation stamp out heresy. It’s quite another to make it a blanket authority throughout the church and throughout the centuries.

 

Posted in Church, History | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Secret of Unity

Posted on 06/29/2010 by Paul Pavao

I already posted today (at 1:30 a.m.), but I ran across a teaching on my The Rest of the Old, Old Story web site that I thought was worth reminding people of.

It’s called The Secret of Unity for the Early Church, and it gives the foundation for unity in the early church. It’s three things, all of which need to be in place together, and it worked.

It worked for centuries.

If you want to know how the devil overthrew it, I’ve got a web page on the fall of the Church, but I’ve also got an ebooklet with an interesting story written from the devil’s perspective called How to Make a Church Fail.

That one’s for sale, which I do so that other web sites will carry it and help get the word out. If you’re from RCV and want it, please send me an email, and I’ll give you a download link. Of course, it’s only $5, and it goes straight to our Africa fund, so there’s no harm in paying for it, either.

 

Posted in Church, History | Tagged | 3 Comments

The Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians: Chapter One

Posted on 06/29/2010 by Paul Pavao

I started this series yesterday with an introduction to the early Christian writings.

This is Ignatius’ epistle to the Ephesians, written in A.D. 107 or 116, about 50 or 60 years after Paul wrote his epistle to the Ephesians and only about 30 years after the letter to the Ephesians found in Revelation ch. two.

This is chapter 1 of 21, but the chapters are way shorter than Paul’s six chapters.

I have become familiar with your name, much beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Savior. Because you are the followers of God and because you stir yourselves up by the blood of God, you have perfectly accomplished the work which was appropriate for you.
     [You hurried to see me] when you heard that I had arrived from Syria, in chains for our common Name and Hope. With the help of your prayers, I am trusting that I will be allowed to fight with the beasts at Rome so that by martyrdom I may truly become the disciple of the One who have himself for us as an offering and sacrifice to God.
     Therefore I received the whole multitude of you in the name of God by the person of Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, your bishop in the flesh. I ask you by Jesus Christ to love him and that you would all try to be like him. Blessed is the One who has given him to you, who has considered you worthy to be given such an excellent bishop.

Repentance of the Ephesians

We discussed this when we discussed Ignatius’ introduction yesterday. The start of chapter one is another indication that Ephesus repented after they received Christ’s letter (Rev. 2). The Ephesians had a "habit of righteousness," based in faith and love for Jesus Christ. Because they stirred themselves up by the blood of God, they perfectly accomplished the work God had for them.

I’d say they had returned to their first love.

The Blood of God, Part One: The Trinity

This is fascinating terminology. Yesterday, we discussed the fact that when the Father and Jesus are mentioned together, the Father is called "God," while Jesus is called "Lord." We all know this.

All of us know that Jesus sat down at the right hand of God. We would never read that the Father sat down at the left hand of God.

Yet here Ignatius talks about the blood of God. It is not typical to reference Jesus as God without naming him. If the Scripture mentions "God" without reference to one of the persons of the Trinity, it almost always means the Father. Yet here is Ignatius clearly referring to the Son with a general reference to God.

Acts 20:28 uses very similar terminology …

Feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.

This is unusual terminology, but not inappropriate, from a Scriptural and early Christian view of the Trinity. It is inexplicable from the Arian or Jehovah’s Witness view of the Trinity.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have actually put out a small booklet on the early Christian view of the Trinity, in which they take the nonsensical position that the early church was Arian—in other words, that they believed with Arius and the Jehovah’s Witnesses that the Son was a creation of God rather than born of him.

The position is nonsensical because the very reason Arius was condemned as a heretic was because he was against the church. You don’t get rejected for heresy when you agree with the church.

The reason the Jehovah’s Witnesses get away with it is because we’ve forgotten the early Christian view of the Trinity. We’ve replaced it with a doctrine that says that all three persons are coequal and coeternal.

This is neither Scriptural nor historical (sorry). It doesn’t agree with the Nicene Creed. Despite the fact that numerous Catholic and Protestant churches recite it weekly, it expressly disagrees with our view of the Trinity.

According to the Nicene Creed (and Scripture, and the early church), we have one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. The Son, Jesus Christ, is begotten of the Father. The Father is not begotten of the Son. The Son is divinity from divinity, light from light, true divinity from true divinity, but the Father is the true divinity and light from which the Son comes.

All the early Christians believed that Jesus meant it when he said the Father was greater than himself (Jn. 14:28). They did not believe it was a temporary thing while he was on the earth. The Father has times that he has set, and some of those are unknown to the Son (Mk. 13:32).

Those last couple paragraphs may be news to you, but they were not news to the early Christians.

Jehovah’s Witnesses

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have jumped on this bit of information in order to promulgate their disinformation. They quote the early Christians extensively because the early Christians said a lot about the Father being the one God.

But the JW’s neglect to quote passages like this one in the first chapter of Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians. They neglect to give you the context of early Christian explanations of the Trinity. They don’t let you know that the early churches expressly rejected the idea that Jesus Christ was created from nothing. If Jesus was not formed from the eternal substance of God—if he was not eternally the Logos, or instinctive thought, of God—then he was not really divine.

It’s for this reason that Arius was wrong, and it’s for this reason that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong.

Does this mean that JW’s can’t be saved?

No. It doesn’t. Chances are, you’ve got the Trinity wrong, and God saved you.

What stops JW’s from being saved is their lack of belief in Jesus Christ. They follow men and the teachings of men. They don’t know that Jesus wants to live inside of them by his Spirit because they believe the Spirit of God is an impersonal force.

Thus, they miss out on the whole central message of the Christian faith: Christ in you, the hope of glory.

The Blood of God, Part Two: The Blood

More important than the doctrine of the Trinity …

Yes, more important than the doctrine of the Trinity is the reference here to being stirred up by the blood of God.

Listen, God will be fine if you don’t understand him. In fact, even if you can perfectly explain the Biblical and early Christian view of the Trinity, you still don’t understand God.

Never forget. God is saving us; we are not saving him.

And that’s the point I want to make about stirring ourselves up by the blood of God.

This whole ticket into heaven things is not what God is after. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The Bible never says that Jesus "paid the penalty" for our sins, and the whole paid-penalty theory is disgusting and immoral.

Are we really willing to suggest that God is under bondage to some cosmic law that forces him to torture people in fire eternally if they commit one sin?

That’s horrifying, and it has nothing to do with the God of the Bible who is praised repeatedly because "his mercy endures forever," a phrase found 41 times in Scripture.

The blood of God was not shed to change God. God was already merciful, which is why Jesus shed his blood. God already forgave sin to the repentant. He did not torture them eternally when they repented; he forgave them when they repented from the very beginning.

As David says, "Sacrifice and offering you do not desire … You do not delight in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart …" (Ps. 51:16-17).

Jesus shed his blood so that you would live a life of repentance and righteousness.

Life was already offered to the repentant even under the Old Covenant …

In repentance and rest you shall be saved … but you would have none of it.

But under the New Covenant, Jesus died for us and not for God.

God didn’t need to change. He was offering salvation to those who would repent. We needed to change. We would have none of it. So Jesus, by his death, enabled us to repent and live for God …

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

What’s our response?

Being enabled, we repent and perform righteous works that God has made for us to do …

If you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if, by the Spirit, you put to death the deeds of the body, then you will live. (Rom. 8:12-13)

The apostles knew that, so that is what they preached.

  • The first Gospel sermon: "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).
  • Jewish description of the Gospel: "So, then, God has also given the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18).
  • Paul’s description of what he preached: "… that they should repent, turn to God, and do works appropriate to repentance" (Acts 26:20).

It remains true to this day that without holiness—a holiness that must be pursued, not one that is simply granted from God—you cannot see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).

It is the blood of Christ that enables us to do this. It is the blood of Christ that breaks the power of sin in us. It is the blood of Christ that cleanses us so that the Spirit of God may dwell in us.

He died for all so that those who live would no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and rose again. (2 Cor. 5:15)

In other words, my friend, you are not going to reap eternal life unless you continue doing good without growing weary (Gal. 6:8-9; 2 Pet. 1:5-11; 1 Jn. 2:3-4; Rom. 2:6-7). (I put Romans 2 at the end of that list because we Protestants don’t believe that verse. However, once you’ve made your way through those verses I listed in Galatians, 2 Peter, and 1 John, maybe Romans 2:6-7 won’t seem so unbelievable to you.)

A Little More on the Blood of God

Isn’t this ridiculous? I’ve spent 1750 words talking about 62 words that Ignatius wrote.

That’s only about 1/3 of that first chapter, and there’s more to say!

For example, he ends that first third—just the part we looked at, not the rest of the chapter—by saying that they have perfectly accomplished the work God had for them. That happened because they stirred themselves up in the blood of God. They did not congratulate themselves on their ticket to heaven and live how they pleased. They stirred themselves up, knowing that the one who says he knows God but doesn’t obey him is a liar (1 Jn. 2:3-4), and they perfectly accomplished the work God had for them.

How? By the blood of Christ.

There’s power in the blood. The blood cleanses us. It gives us fellowship with one another … if we walk in the light (1 Jn. 1:7). That blood is precious.

That blood is precious not only because it saved us, but because it purchased us. Yes, we’ve been bought by the blood of the Lamb of God, slain since the foundation of the world (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Eph. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:18-19).

Moving On

Okay, we’re hitting 2,000 words again. Let’s move on.

We’ll have plenty to do tomorrow: martyrdom as an entrance to heaven; how close Ignatius comes to bishop-worship and why.

It’ll be fun.

Posted in Bible, Gospel, History, Holiness, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians, Introduction

Posted on 06/28/2010 by Paul Pavao

This letter is taken from THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, Volume I, and updated to modern language. The original translation is about 120 years old and is in university-style English.

We’ll begin with the introduction by Ignatius, and then there’s 21 chapters to cover. The chapters are only a paragraph long each, so this letter is not much longer than Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. There’s just more chapters.

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the church which is at Ephesus in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father and predestined before the ages to always be for a lasting and unchangeable glory; united and chosen in true suffering by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ, our God:
     Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ and his undefiled grace.
     

"Called Theophorus"

Theophorus means "God-bearer." Obviously, Ignatius was respected as a man of God to receive a name like this from the church.

Apparently, name changes were still in vogue in Ignatius’ time. We know that in Scripture Simon became Peter, Saul became Paul, and Barnabas was once Joseph.

Some of those name changes were probably Jewish believers adopting Greek names, although even then the names meant something. Paul, for example, means "small." The chances are good that this name was chosen on purpose, perhaps to keep Paul humble.

Scripture gives us the meaning of Peter and Barnabas. The former is "rock" and the latter "son of comfort." We are certain that Peter (originally, the Hebrew Cephas) was given with the meaning in mind because Matthew 18 says so. The chances are good we can safely assume the same with Barnabas.

The Repentance of the Ephesians

Surely, after Rev. 2:4 tells us that the Ephesians had lost their first love and the next verse tells us that Jesus was considering removing their candlestick—their light as a church—we must wonder what became of the Ephesian church.

It is not only Ignatius who tells us. 70 years later Irenaeus uses the church at Ephesus as an example of the apostolic faith (Against Heresies III:3:4), and 30 years after that Tertullian does the same (Prescription Against Heretics 36).

Ignatius tells us they are deservedly most happy. I think we can be confident that the testimony of tradition is that Ephesus repented at the letter of Christ.

Shouldn’t that be what we assume, anyway?

I’ve been told before that the rebukes to churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 are evidence that the early church fell away. This is used as an excuse to ignore the writings of the apostolic churches when they tell us modern Christians that something we believe is false.

But why would we believe Jesus wrote a letter to no purpose?

Sure, it’s possible those churches ignored a letter from Jesus Christ himself, but it seems unlikely. If the pagan Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah, should we expect that a church like Ephesus—which rejected false apostles, suffered, had patience, and labored without growing tired—repented at the direct admonishment of the Lord Jesus himself?

Now we have evidence. Three witnesses tell us that Ephesus was a shining example of the apostolic faith for the next hundred years after they received a letter from the Lord Jesus.

Modern Doctrines

This introduction by Ignatius touches on a couple modern doctrines.

One is Calvinism, the doctrine of predestination, that we are predestined to be saved or condemned. The other is the Trinity, for Ignatius refers to Jesus Christ as "our God."

Predestination

On the first, we should note that Ignatius tells us that the Ephesian church was predestined before the ages to always be for an enduring and unchanging glory. It does not say that individual Ephesians were predestined to be saved or unsaved.

This is an important fact to remember when reading Romans 9 through 11, the definitive text on predestination in the New Testament.

In that passage of Scripture, Paul does mention God choosing Jacob over Esau and choosing Pharaoh as an instrument of wrath. However, the subject of Romans 9-11 is the rejection of Israel and the choosing of the Gentiles, not the choosing of individuals to be saved or lost.

Also, as a side note, the reference to loving Jacob and hating Esau in that passage is from Malachi chapter one. There, the "Jacob" and "Esau" being referenced are their descendants, the nations of Israel and Edom, not the individuals.

God tells us directly in several places that he wants all men to be saved, not just some. If he elects some and does not elect others, it is not unconditional. If it were unconditional, then all would be saved because that is the will of God (e.g., 2 Pet. 3:9).

This reference by Ignatius is one of many that references predestination and election, yet the early Christians writings universally reject the idea that God might will that anyone be lost.

For example …

There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil way of life, because you are a free man; nor from seeking and finding out who is the Lord of all; nor from serving him with all your heart. For with him there is no reluctance to give the knowledge of himself to those that seek it, according to the measure of their capacity to know him. (Melito of Sardis, Discourse in the Presence of Antoninus Caesar, from Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VIII, A.D. 170)

That is just one example; there are many.

The Trinity

The reference by Ignatius to Jesus Christ as our God is both unusual and not unusual. It is not unusual because there are many references in both the New Testament and in the early church fathers to Jesus as God. It is unusual because there are almost no references in either to Jesus Christ as God when the Father is also mentioned.

In fact, in the New Testament, if the Father and Jesus are mentioned together, Jesus is not called God even once. (Please feel free to let me know if there’s a reference I missed.)

The reason for this is given by Tertullian around A.D. 200. He is sometimes called the father of the Trinity by historians because he is the first early Christian to actually use the term. He has a couple works addressing the Trinity. They are orthodox in the sense that they agree with everything written prior to the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), to the creed given at Nicea, and to the Apostles Creed, which is the Nicene Creed with a couple additions.

Tertullian writes …

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

We find that the Nicene Creed (or Apostles Creed) agrees with Tertullian. In that creed, considered the standard of orthodoxy by most Christians, we read …

We believe in one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God

That part of the creed is practically a direct quote of 1 Corinthian 8:6.

The fact is, Tertullian is correct. It’s simply true that when the Father and Jesus are mentioned together, in virtually every case except this introduction by Ignatius and one other, also by Ignatius, the Father is called God and the Son is called Lord.

You can find a thorough description of the early Christian (and apostolic) view of the Trinity on video in the Trinity section of Christian History for Everyman. Following all the links there will give you nearly an hour’s reading, rife with references and quotes, on exactly how the apostles explained the relationship between the Father and the Son.

But here’s the short version.

Before the beginning, there was just God, with his Word inside him. There were not multiple persons of God, there was just one.

Then God, in some way that humans cannot fathom, gave birth to his Logos, which was inside of him. Early Christians commonly quoted Psalm 45:1 from the Septuagint to back this up. It reads …

My heart has emitted a good Word.

That Logos, or Word, as we like to translate it in English, was the Son.

The reason the Council of Nicea anathametized anyone who said "there was a time when the Son did not exist" is because, according to apostolic doctrine, the Son always existed, though in eternity past, before the ages and the initial creation of the heavens and the earth, his existence was inside of God, not separate.

Tertullian writes …

Before all things God was alone. … He was alone because there was nothing external to him but himself. Yet even then he was not alone, for he had with him that which he possessed in himself—his Reason [ed. note: Tertullian expressly says he is translating Logos when he uses Reason to refer to the Son]. … Although God had not yet sent his Word, he still had him within himself. (Against Praxeas 5)

The Son, then, is called God because he has the right to be called God, being fully and completely divine. However, since he is the Word of God, come out of God, when they are mentioned together, the Father is called God, and the Son is referred to as Lord.

More?

I mentioned in the last post, which was actually just a few hours ago, that we could talk about a thousand things from Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians. I hope you can tell from what we’ve discussed in the introduction that this is only barely an exaggeration.

In fact, I am simply quitting now. I have not run out of things to talk about. It’s hard not to chase every rabbit trail. For example, in mentioning that Peter means rock, above, it is hard not to talk about the false but common Protestant teaching that Peter is Petros or pebble, while the rock upon which the church is built is Petra or boulder.

When the event recorded in Matthew 16:18 happened, Jesus was speaking Aramaic (the form of Hebrew spoken in Israel in the first century), and he was calling Peter Cephas, not Petros or Petra. It was not until Matthew (or a translator) wrote his Gospel in Greek that we read that Jesus called Simon Petros.

In Aramaic, both terms are the same. Jesus calls Peter Cephas, and upon Cephas he builds his church. But in Greek, Matthew couldn’t translate to Petra, the word for boulder. Petra is female. He had to use Petros, the male form.

Greek isn’t English, and you can’t simply use a female form of a name when speaking of a man. Their language emphasizes gender, and even inanimate objects have gender in Greek. So do abstract concepts. For example, kingdom in Greek is feminine; spirit is neuter; law is male.

So Matthew was not distinguishing Peter from the rock upon which the church is built in Matthew 16:18. Everyone who mentions that passage for centuries afterward, including the Greek-speaking 2nd and 3rd century Christians, understood that Jesus was saying that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built. So distinguishing Petros and Petra is simply a mistake made by English speakers who don’t understand gender because our language doesn’t use it.

Yet this doesn’t mean that Peter was a pope because …

Oops, there I go again. This post is almost 2000 words now, and it will be 2000 words before I get this conclusion done, I’m sure.

If you want to know how we know there was no pope in the pre-Nicene church see my video on the subject or this page if you want it in writing.

I hope I’ll see you tomorrow for chapter one …

 

Posted in Church, History | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

Posted on 06/28/2010 by Paul Pavao

It’s fascinating to me that we have letters from early Christians to some of the very same churches Paul wrote to.

Ignatius wrote to the Ephesians and Romans, Clement wrote to the Corinthians, and Polycarp wrote to the Philippians. And then there’s the other names that we don’t know so well: Ignatius, for example, wrote to the Magnesians and Trallians.

For those of you not familiar with the early Christian writings—or The Ante-Nicene Fathers, as they’re known in the 10-volume series from Edinburgh, Scotland in the late 19th century—I should tell you that such letters are real. Ignatius wrote 7 letters in either A.D. 107 or 116 while being transported to Rome for martyrdom; Polycarp wrote just his Philippian letter in the early 2nd century; and Clement is credited for the letter addressed from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, probably in A.D. 96.

Yes, A.D. 96.

Pretty neat, huh?

The apostle John was still alive at the time, and if Irenaeus—who was taught by Polycarp—is correct, then the Gospel of John was not even written yet. It’s from 2 or 3 years after Rome’s letter to Corinth known as First Clement.

Second Clement, if you’re interested, is a very early sermon, probably dated in the 1st half of the 2nd century, that is attributed to Clement of Rome, but probably falsely so.

And Clement is called "of Rome" because there’s another Clement from Alexandria a century later.

That’s some quick and general comments about early Christianity. There’s way too many things I don’t teach because I don’t have my ducks all lined up in a row yet. But I can yammer on for hours about early Christianity, and most of it is life-changing stuff if it’s put into practice.

So I’m going to spend some time on it. Next blog I’m starting in on Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians. There are a thousand things to say from its words!

It’s not my favorite letter. My favorites—it’s hard to pick just one—are Polycarp’s letter (you can tell he’s awesome), Clement’s letter to Corinth, and the anonymous Letter to Diognetus.

As you can see by the link, I’ve already reworded that into modern English and commented on it for you.

Enjoy! Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians coming up tomorrow!

Wait, wait, wait …

I know what you’re thinking. Is there anything to look forward to?

Well, for starters, do you remember that it’s the church of Ephesus that’s told they lost their first love in the Book of the Revelation (ch. 2). Jesus threatened to pull their candlestick!

Did they repent?

Well, Ignatius wrote his letter 3 or 4 decades after Revelation was written. He might be able to tell us, mightn’t he?

 

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

Can the Gates of Hell Prevail Against the Church

Posted on 06/23/2010 by Paul Pavao

Roman Catholics are constantly telling me that Matthew 16:18—"The gates of hell shall not prevail against [the church]"—is proof that the church did not fall in the 4th century, like I say it did.

Wishful Thinking

It’s amazing how much of our theology is based on wishful thinking. When the Roman Catholics absurdly assert that the church could not have fallen, even though it obviously did, they are not doing anything unusual. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Protestants, and you and me are likely to behave exactly the same way.

We all have things we wish were true, and we argue like school children trying to make people believe we have solid evidence for those things.

The people who cling to truth are those who know how prone they are to wishful thinking and can despise the pain of self-denial.

Either that, or you can just hope you’re lucky and you grew up or were converted in the right denomination.

The church fell, whether the Roman Catholic Church likes it or not. Facts are facts, and asserting that something is impossible when it clearly happened is irrational.

So what in the world did Jesus mean?

Gates as Offensive Weapons

Now I don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard of gates being used as weapons.

Even Samson, when he tore the gates off the city of Gaza (Judges 16:1-3), just ran away with them. He didn’t kill any Philistines with them, nor use them as weapons in any other way.

Gates are defensive structures.

Surely if the gates of hell are not going to prevail against the church, it’s because the church is assailing them. Seems kind of obvious, doesn’t it?

Tradition

It’s amazing, too, how much we’re all influenced by what we’ve been told all our lives.
When I mentioned this passage in a teaching last week, two old-timers—tried and true, long-time Scripture lovers—told me they’d never heard this teaching before.
They wouldn’t need this teaching if tradition didn’t have us in a headlock. They’d have come to it on their own. I didn’t get this on my own, either. I read it somewhere a couple decades ago. Otherwise, I’d be blindly applying the nonsensical RCC interpretation, too.

So the idea of Matthew 16:18 is not that the church won’t fall. The idea is that when and where the church exists, she will assail the gates of Hades and bring back the dead.

The Greek there is Hades. There’s several NT words for hell, and Hades is a reference to the place where the dead are. It’s very general, so it can mean the grave as well as the place where the rich man, Lazarus, and Abraham were (Luke 16:19-31).

One of our jobs as Christians is, of course, to rescue those who are dead in their trespasses and sins. Thus, we need to destroy the gates that keep them in Hades.

If we’ll join forces, giving up our divisions—that we like to more pleasantly call denominations, since our imperfect English translations neglect to tell us those will send us to hell like divisions will—then we’ll be able to tear those gates down.

If we don’t … well, then, we’ll just be more proof I can use to unwisely try to convince Roman Catholics of the obvious.

 

Posted in Bible, Church, History, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Brand Loyalty to Christ

Posted on 06/03/2010 by Paul Pavao

An old friend once talked about a terrible motel room he slept in. It smelled so bad that he slept with the soap from the bathroom tucked under his nose as a deodorizer. The next time he went to a motel, he looked for a "Great Western" sign.

The "Great Western" sign meant something.

It was a brand, and brands say things. "Great Western" says "inexpensive, clean, and well-maintained."

An even better example is Apple, Google, and Microsoft.

In the long run, Microsoft cannot win its battles with Apple and Google because of brand. "Microsoft" means rich, greedy, glitches, and updates that are not improvements. Apple means innovative and reliable. Google adds "free" to innovative and reliable.

So how does this apply to Christianity?

Brands of Christianity

I saw an excellent post called Let Them Eat Cake! today. It was on brands of Christianity. It is an innovative, stinging commentary on the brand of "Sola," an obvious reference to the Protestant Reformation solas—sola gratia, sola scriptura, and sola fide.

It does an excellent job of pointing out the shortcomings of sola scriptura (Scripture only).

It falls short in the most important area, though. If sola scriptura is not producing "brand recognition" of the original faith, then what does?

They don’t address this. I’m supposing that we’re to assume they’re referring to tradition-based Christianity such as Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

The problem is, Roman Catholic tradition and Orthodoxy do produce a brand you can recognize.

They reliably produce worldliness, carnality, idolatry, and an indifference to the commands of Christ.

That’s not a brand I intend to be loyal to, nor make the first purchase from.

My Take on Properly Branded Christianity

I’m just cutting and pasting the comment I made on their blog …

Unfortunately, it’s not just Evangelicals who don’t have the original packaging. In fact, I’d say it’s clear they have far more of it than more traditional Christians.

The original packaging can be found in Titus 2, where Paul describes sound doctrine.

It can be found in 2 Tim. 2:19, where Paul says that the foundation involves departing from iniquity.

Scripture–whether it is sola or not–was given to equip the saints for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). At the judgment seat, we will be judged for our works, not for our opinion on the presence of the Lord in the Eucharist or our understanding of baptism.

If your doctrine doesn’t produce people who turn the other cheek, don’t return insult for insult, who stay faithful to their spouses, who love and give, and who are not friends with the world … well, then you can argue your doctrines from Scripture, tradition, or whatever else you want, and your doctrine, correct or incorrect, will be useless.

Justin Martyr described Christians of his day—A.D. 150—as people who formerly pursued wealth, but now shared everything; who formerly were sexually immoral, but who now lived in purity; who formerly hated, but now shared the same fire with men of other tribes and prayed for their persecutors.

That’s the brand of Jesus Christ—unity, love, righteousness, peace, joy, and power with God.

The rest is useless words, and of those the kingdom of God does not consist (1 Cor. 4:20).

Posted in Church, Gospel, History, Holiness, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

Catching Up …

Posted on 06/01/2010 by Paul Pavao

I haven’t written a blog post here in almost 3 weeks. It’s not from lack of things to write about.

Quite the opposite. There’s been LOTS to write about, but I’ve been so busy doing it that I haven’t been writing. I’ve barely had time to answer emails, even business ones.

Cow Brain Removal

First, I learned how to remove a cow brain from a cow skull. (Don’t go there unless you don’t mind seeing some gross pictures.)

Don’t worry. It was for my daughter’s science project, not some religious ritual.

Preaching the Gospel

Then we went to California to talk to people about the church.

It was an amazing time. God really opened some doors, and we learned some things about our own inadequacy, God’s sufficiency, and the power of prayer.

The most exciting thing to me is when God’s revelation comes, and the light turns on.

You can see it in a person’s face. It can be shocking, but often when the Gospel of the kingdom comes—that we’re a nation of priests, ruled by God, not just individuals struggling along—then the love of God accompanies it, and it’s warm, drawing, and powerful.

We have to keep praying. Just because someone heard the Word of God with power does not mean that they’ll hold onto it and give themselves to it. The devil is always looking for opportunity to steal away the seed or to choke out a new plant. He is not going to stand for seeing a real church, a gathering of committed—however weak they may be, they are committed—disciples … because the gates of hell will never prevail against them. They will snatch the elect from his grip.

More later …

Posted in Church, Gospel, Miscellaneous, news | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Born-Again Bible Reading: A Thought for Discussion

Posted on 05/13/2010 by Paul Pavao

Below is an email I sent to a dear friend this morning concerning "parsimony" in Scripture interpretation. I believe all of it is true, but rather than explain why, I thought I’d initiate a little discussion.

Parsimony: Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data

My friend had written:

I’m starting to find that there’s a lot to the whole parsimony thing. I had been raised with complex answers to so many questions about the scriptures, but the simplest, (and often hardest to swallow and walk in faith in) is usually the right interpretation. ie: Jesus, Paul, James, John… they simply meant what they said.

My Response

I was thinking about that this morning.

The “born-again” crowd is given a few teachings that are not to be questioned. Then they read the Bible and the very books that supposedly produced those teachings–Romans, Galatians, Ephesians–are confusing, almost incomprehensible from a fundamentalist interpretation. Christians then just get used to the cognitive dissonance. “I believe the Bible. The Bible has all sorts of verses that I really don’t believe. Here’s the verses I use to ignore those verses. I believe the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God.”

Parsimony destroys the entire fundamentalist system. It rips their most important doctrines to shreds.

On the other hand, after some years of reading the Bible parsimoniously and getting your beliefs bulldozed, all the Scriptures begin to fall right into place so beautifully that it’s breathtaking.

It’s a lot like having a scratch-off game card. As you scratch more and more off, you begin to see the prize.

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