The Righteousness of God vs. Our Righteousness

Posted on 02/06/2010 by Paul Pavao

Sometimes I don’t get around to blogging because everything I write is so long and takes an hour to write.

I wrote the following on a young friend’s blog, and I thought I should make it my own blog post.

She wrote:

I was just thinking about how we say that we want to follow Him, and we deny ourselves, but only one time. And then when someone asks us what we’ve given up to follow Him, we bring up the one big thing we’ve given up to follow Him, but in our daily lives, there’s so many things we hold on to.

Insightful, isn’t it?

Anyway, I didn’t leave it alone. I added, in her comment section:

One thought on giving up things. One other way that we fool ourselves is to give up things that are easy and never notice the places that we don’t let God in.

The example I think of is the rich, young ruler. He came to Christ, and he’d kept all the commandments, but he knew he was lacking something. When Jesus asked for that something–selling his possessions, giving to the poor, and following Christ–the young ruler went away sad.

There’s a righteousness that’s ours, and there’s a righteousness that is from God by faith. The righteousness from God will touch the areas we don’t want touched. Our own righteousness will sacrifice where it’s easy, gloat over it, condemn others who aren’t where we are, and hide the “one thing you lack” in our self-righteousness.

 

Posted in Gospel, Holiness | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Statistics on Born Again and Churched Christians

Posted on 01/18/2010 by Paul Pavao

We have a lot of work to do.

The following quotes are from Revolution, by George Barna. I did not loosely put these together, however. I picked them from among a much larger list.

Read them one at a time and look at the picture that emerges.

  • The biweekly attendance at worship services is, by believers’ own admission, generally the only time they worship God.
  • Eight out of every ten believers do not feel they have entered into the presence of God, or experienced a connection with Him, during the worship service.
  • Fewer that one out of every six churched believers has a relationship with another believer though which spiritual accountability is provided.
  • The most significant influence on the choices of churched believers is neither teachings from the pulpit nor advice gleaned from fellow congregants; it is messages absorbed from the media, the law, and family members.

In light of all this, how shocking is the following additional finding?:

A large majority of churched believers rely upon the church, rather than the family, to train their children to become spiritually mature.

Um, if that isn’t working for the parents, how likely is it to work for the children???

We have to do something different!!!

I’ve heard that the definition of insanity is to do the same things but expect different results.

Can we really just keep preaching expository sermons in church twice a week—or just once a week—while the situation is as described above?

Apparently, people are figuring out that we can’t. Barna believes that 20 million people have left institutional churches to meet in homes, which is the topic of his book.

Given the information above, it seems an obvious recommendation that everyone follow them. Even better, maybe the pastors could figure out the obvious and change what they’re doing!

Think about it. If you lectured week after week for years—or in this case, centuries—and maybe 10% to 20% were listening, would you just keep lecturing? Wouldn’t you stop at some point and have a frank discussion with the listeners and figure out what was wrong? I know I would!

Unfortunately, the simple truth is that the pastor who does that will find out what’s wrong. If he gets Biblical about what to do, then he will lose at least 50% of his congregation and probably more, and he will lose his livelihood because even the unspiritual shell out money to sit in the pew each week.

I hope the reason that this is not happening is because pastors just don’t know any better. In some cases, I’m sure that must be true. In other cases, pastors are just hirelings who care more about money and security than they do about God’s people, God, or his will.

What should we do different?

So what should we do?

Well, the full answer to that is quite long. The short answer to that is be scriptural. Many of the areas we’re not being scriptural are obvious. For example:

  • How is it, then, brothers? When you come together every one of you has a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, a revelation, an interpretation. Let everything be done decently and in order.
  • Through [Christ] all the body, being rightly formed and united together, by the full working of every part, is increased to the building up of itself in love.

Obviously, every part of the body must be doing its share, and the members must all participate in meetings. As Paul further puts it:

If anything is revealed to another that is sitting down, let the first hold his peace, for you may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and that all may be comforted.

Is that how your church service is conducted? Can you find a similar verse in Scripture that talks about singing, an offering, and then a sermon?

Obviously, sermons can be preached, and even long-winded, somewhat boring sermons can be preached and our services still be Scriptural. Paul put one young man to sleep preaching, who then fell out of a window and was thought dead! (Acts 20:9).

But are we doing the other? Are Christians being encouraged to participate in Christian gatherings?

There are many other issues. They are the sorts of things I talk about on this blog. I pull those things from those who have statistics that look nothing like the ones I quoted above. I pull my topics from churches whose members are devoted to Christ almost across the board, who care about how they raise their children, who ask advice, who are held accountable, and who give their lives to Christ day by day, asking how they need to change to conform better to his will.

This isn’t condemnation. This is pleasing God. This is finding God’s will. And if we call ourselves Christians, then nothing else ought to matter to us.

Posted in Bible, Church, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

The Atonement: What You Must Know

Posted on 01/09/2010 by Paul Pavao

I just wrote a long post on works. It’s long because I took the time to try to answer some concerns that honest, God-fearing modern Christians have about the things I say about works (which I got from the Scriptures and the apostles’ churches).

Another post that aroused concerns was my post on the atonement. In fact, I suspect that what was even harder to swallow was the section on the atonement in The Foundation of God, an ebook I’m almost done writing, but which needs a lot of editing and formatting.

In talking with friends of mine, I was able to put my finger on some reasons some of them couldn’t understand what I was saying.

1. You can’t cover the doctrine of the atonement in one blog post.

Was I missing something in what I said about the atonement? Of course!

You can’t cover the atonement in one blog post. In fact, if you study the history of atonement theology, you’ll find it’s about the most complicated subject in all of church history. You begin to wonder if anyone fully understood it.

In fact, I’m not wondering anymore. I’m convinced no one understands it fully. The work of Christ on the cross was so great that it can be spoken of many different ways, all of them accurately, and no one person is going to understand all those different ways.

The cross of Christ was a great work of God, and it’s no surprise that it remains a mystery to man.

However …

There are inaccurate ways to describe the atonement, and one of  them is in the Tangle video I embedded in the post I mentioned above. There they tell us that if we commit even one sin, then God won’t let us into heaven. They then tell us not to worry, Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, so we don’t have to.

That theology makes God a monster who will eternally torture people for one small sin. It’s ludicrous, and it’s slander of God. There’s nothing in the Scripture that describes God in that sort of way. God in the Scripture is a merciful God who does not need sacrifice to forgive sin. He needs a broken and contrite heart (Ps. 51:16-17; Jer. 7:22-23).

When I described the atonement in that post, I was refuting a specific, false gospel presentation as found in that Tangle video. Thus I emphasized one aspect of Christ’s atonement, though I believe it is the most major aspect: Jesus died for us, to obtain the power of the Spirit for us so that we can repent, submit to God, and live life in the Spirit.

2. I have a goal, and it is not to teach you the atonement.

Paul said that the goal of God’s commands is love from a sincere heart, a good conscience, and a faith that is not fake (1 Tim. 1:5).

That is my goal.

The grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteous, and godly (Tit. 2:11-12). I teach the same thing, encouraging you to good works by letting you know two things:

  1. You can only do the works God has called you to by the Spirit of God
  2. Those works are required; you cannot live in the flesh and go to heaven

If you agree with that, then I don’t want to delve into long explanations of  the atonement that both you and I have a limited understanding of. I only explain the atonement enough to overthrow the false teaching that you can live however you want and experience no penalty for your sins because Jesus died for you.

That’s not so:

This you know: no immoral, unclean, or covetous person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Eph. 5:5-6)

God’s wrath comes upon the sons of disobedience because of immorality, uncleanness, covetousness and other like sins. They are not paid for, and if you don’t live in repentance, yours aren’t paid for either.

3. Terminology sometimes matters

In my post, I refuted the idea that Jesus paid the penalty for sins. Then I turned around and said that Jesus died for our sins. A friend told me that it sounded like I was contradicting myself.

I was not. Jesus did not pay the penalty of sin. He died because of our sins. He was a sin offering for us. In some mystical way that is beyond our human minds, he bound us to God and overthrew the power of sin by his offering.

He did not simply pay a penalty.

Let me explain with a commonly used illustration.

Christians like to evangelize by telling a story about two twin brothers. One commits a murder, rushes home in the blood-stained clothes, tears them off and hides them, and then waits in the living room. Soon a policeman knocks on the door, but the innocent twin puts on his brother’s blood-stained clothes and takes the rap for him.

By the time the evil twin realizes what has happened, his brother has been put to death. Stricken with remorse he weeps before the court, confessing his crime. The court, however, refuses to try him because someone has already paid the penalty.

Nice story, but it has nothing to do with why Christ died. Your penalty is not paid. Instead, the court of heaven will simply forgive you if you repent. It has always been that way (Ezek. 18:21-22).

Terminology can be important. In the atonement, Jesus did not pay the penalty even though he did die for our sins and even bring forgiveness.

4. What must you know about the atonement?

Nothing at all.

You reap the benefits of the atonement by confessing and forsaking your sin out of faith in Christ, not by studying and understanding Christ’s death.

If we confess our sin, God is faithful and just to forgive our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 Jn. 1:9)

If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from every sin. (1 Jn. 1:7)

Notice that if you confess your sin and walk in the light, you will experience the benefits of the atonement. You will be forgiven.

There are no promises that if you understand and believe in the atonement, then your sins will be forgiven.

None; nada.

Read through Acts sometime. The apostles never told any lost person why Jesus died. They told them that Jesus died, but they never told any lost person why. It didn’t matter. They wanted people to believe in Jesus Christ and be saved, not understand his sacrifice on their behalf.

Do you want to understand the atonement, or would you rather experience it? If you want to experience it, then obey Christ. He has promised eternal salvation to those who obey him (Heb. 5:9). (Did you know that one was in the Bible?)

Conclusion

Since I’m aware of this, I don’t want to complete your understanding of the atonement. I can’t!

I can, however, overthrow that false and dangerous gospel that says Jesus paid the penalty for your sins, so it doesn’t matter you you live. Hogwash. Sow to the Spirit, and you’ll reap eternal life. Sow to the flesh, and you won’t.

Simple as that.

I just want you to wholeheartedly follow, worship, love, adore, and know the Most High God. If that’s not what you want, or if it’s more important that you keep your own life, then know that God has said you will lose your soul after you die.

Simple as that.

Much grace be with you!

Posted in Gospel, Modern Doctrines | 2 Comments

Finding the Truth: Do We Have Assurance or Must We Merit Salvation?

Posted on 01/09/2010 by Paul Pavao

I need to address two issues:

  1. I raised a lot of concerns by what I said about works.
  2. How do we determine whether what I taught is true?

One of the concerns raised to me was:

It seems to me that an over emphasis on works for assurance can easily lead to fear, bondage, and despair.

Okay, let’s assume that’s possible. The problem is, we don’t get to determine what’s true based on what we think the consequences might be.

The question is not whether a teaching might possibly lead to fear, bondage, and despair. The question is: Is it true?

In the several emails I got in response to my post, no one presented a refutation of what I said. I took that to mean that I what I taught was so clearly Scriptural that it was undeniable.

That’s not surprising to me. It’s not the result of clear thinking on my part. It’s simply the result of believing Paul’s statement that the church is the pillar and support of the truth. The apostles churches had an even greater emphasis on works than I did.

Thus, my concern is not that I have over-emphasized works, but that I am under-emphasizing them out of a lack of understanding of God’s power.

Speaking of God’s power, let me address the concerns I was asked about. Most of  those who asked did so out of a legitimate concern, not out of an argumentative spirit.

Do You Believe There Is Such a Thing as an Assurance of Salvation?

I do … on the basis of 1 John, which was written on that subject.

I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 Jn. 5:13)

In evangelism class as a good fundamentalist, I was taught that this means that everyone who believes on the name of the Son of God has eternal life just because they believe.

In a sense, of course, that’s true. Eternal life does come just out of belief. However, the “these things” of 1 John 5:13 is a reference to all the things he wrote in that letter, and those things tell us what real belief produces:

This is the way that we know that we know him: if we keep his commandments. He that says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (2:3-4)

A faith that changes your life is a real faith. A faith that doesn’t change your life has something wrong with it. Such a faith cannot save you. John continues:

Little children, let no one deceive you. He that practices righteousness is righteous just as [Christ] is righteous. (3:7)

James says something very similar:

Of what benefit is it, brothers, if a man says he has faith but has no works? Can faith save him? (Jam. 2:14)

The answer to that question, of course, is no. If the rhetorical nature of that question is not clear, James says it directly  for you:

So you see that a person is justified by works and not by faith only. (Jam. 2:24)

That verse, you may be interested to know, is the only occurrence of the phrase “faith alone” or “faith only” in the entire Bible.

These sorts of verses make it clear that “assurance” hinges on works being produced in your life.

Are those works produced out of faith? Of course they are. The hope will always be that those who seek to produce works out of their own strength will fail, and in their failure, and in their certain knowledge and expectation of judgment, they will turn to him alone who can save, Jesus, our Savior and Redeemer.

But surely there is no passage clearer on the subject of atonement than 2 Pet. 1:10-11:

Be diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things, you will never fall. For in this way an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Will this produce despair in those who do not have works or who find it difficult to turn away from sin and live in obedience to God?

Hopefully! But whether it does or not, it’s hard to say that assurance depends on doing something any clearer than Peter just said it.

I say “hopefully” because if you find that you cannot turn away from sin and live for God, then you haven’t believed the Gospel. If you are under grace, says the Scriptures, then sin will not have power over you (Rom. 6:14).

Thus, if you do not have this power, you need to find out what the real Gospel is, believe it, and obtain that power.

Paul despaired in exactly that way. He cried out, “Oh, wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death?” (Rom. 7:24).

Paul, however, had an answer. That answer was Jesus Christ. The Law could not deliver Paul from sin, but “what the Law could not do, God did, by sending his Son … ” (Rom. 8:3-4). The result was that “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2).

The Necessary Caveats or …

Explaining Things  for Modern Christians

Does this mean we have to be perfect?

No.

John adds:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 Jn. 2:1)

James, too, knows that we all sin:

For we all stumble in many things. (Jam. 3:2)

Nonetheless, both these men make it clear that we are expected to obey God, and if we do not, then we will not be saved.

God is a just Judge. The accusation that God must send people to hell if  they sin even once is not true and makes a monster out of God.

How can we know we’re being obedient enough to merit salvation?

Merit is like a cuss word to modern Christians. We can never “merit” salvation. In fact, we shouldn’t “merit” salvation.

At least that’s what people say.

What they say is both true and not true.

It is true in the sense that the reason salvation is by grace (not by faith, but by the grace that faith obtains) is so that we would not be able to boast. We, in ourselves, cannot be worthy. It is by the Spirit that we put to death the deeds of the body, and it is this fact that eliminates boasting. We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works.

But it is not true in the sense that the Scriptures say we must be worthy.

Sorry.

You have a few names, even in Sardis, that have not defiled their garments, and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. (Rev. 3:4)

That’s merit being specifically discussed in so many words.  But it’s said indirectly as well:

I discipline my body and bring it under subjection lest, having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified. (1 Cor. 9:27)

How can we be obedient enough? – Part 2

Actually, yes we can. For two reasons:

One we’ve been talking about. God has the power to keep us from stumbling and to present us faultless before his throne by his grace (1 Cor. 1:7; Jude 24). The other is over emphasized in modern Christianity, but it needs to be addressed in this blog.

We’ve already mentioned that God is merciful, but we need to say it further.

To him that does not work but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Just as David describes the man to whom God imputes righteousness without works, “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” (Rom. 4:5-8)

The man who is in Christ, who does not walk according to the flesh, can indeed inherit these promises. They are true. There really is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

But you have to be in Christ Jesus!

John puts it well:

If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 Jn. 1:7)

If we want to receive these promises of mercy; if we want to walk in no condemnation; if we want to experience a continual cleansing from sin by the blood of Jesus, then we must walk in the light; we must walk by the Spirit.

John warns us not to be fooled about this:

My little children, do not be deceived. He who practices righteousness is righteous just as he is righteous. (1 Jn. 3:7)

Do you possess the righteousness of Christ? You can only possess that righteousness if you are practicing righteousness yourself. I’m not speaking of earning that righteousness, but I am saying that the same effort to walk in the light and walk by the Spirit that allows you to experience continual forgiveness and the the righteousness of Christ will also produce practical, visible righteousness in your life.

One early Christian, writing around the year 150, explained it very well:

If they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God, and the Scripture foretells that they shall be blessed, saying, “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin” [Ps. 32:2]. In other words, repenting of his sins, he may receive remission of them from God. It’s not as you [Jews] deceive yourselves … who say that even though they are sinners, yet know God, the Lord will not impute sin to them.

The proof of this is the fall of David … which was forgiven when he mourned and wept, as it is written. So if even to a man like David no remittance was granted before he repented, and only when this great king, anointed one, and prophet mourned and conducted himself as it is written, then how can the impure and utterly abandoned–if they don’t weep, don’t mourn, and don’t repent–entertain the hope that the Lord will not impute sin to them? (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, A Jew, ch. 141)

I apologize that this post is so long, but I’m trying to answer questions. I hope that it’s the heart of a teacher that wants to answer thoroughly.

I’m trying to paint a clear picture that will help you see and understand, but you have to have an open heart yourself. You have to search the Scriptures; you have to want truth.

Be assured, though, that whatever you come to must pass one test. It must be the doctrine according to godliness. Grace is not a license for sin, and it is possible to deny God by your works and thus become abominable.

Let us be able ministers of the New Testament. Let us be students of the Scripture, learning from it, not reading into it.

And let us test ourselves by the churches of the apostles. Let us test ourselves by the results we produce. The true Gospel is the power of God to salvation, and it will produce and reveal the righteousness of God. If your converts are not living fruitful lives, giving up their own souls that they may receive them back from God, safe and secure in his hands, then you are preaching the wrong Gospel, and you need to change.

Posted in Gospel, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

What Is the Gospel?

Posted on 01/04/2010 by Paul Pavao

I reproduced this post at Christian-history.org. Today, April 3, 2014, I am revising it because its language was way too strong.

Rather than revise both pages, I am only revising it at the web site, and I am changing this post to link to that page.

Posted in Gospel, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Commenting on the Bible

Posted on 12/31/2009 by Paul Pavao

I’d like to direct those of you who read this to the commentary section of my Rest of the Old, Old Story site. I’m going to start updating it, beginning with the things found in today’s blog on Jeremiah 6.

Why should you read a commentary put together by me (especially one as sparse as is mine is right now)?

No reason, really, unless you’re reading this blog because it helps you. If this blog helps you, then the commentary will, too. In fact, anyone busy with the Lord’s work of building the church in contrast to the clubs and institutions of modern Christendom will find the commentaries delightful and encouraging.

Commentaries are not the Bible. They are not timeless. Commentaries represent the time they are written in, and they apply Scripture to the present age. I can say things about the application of Scripture to our day that Matthew Henry never could because he’s no longer alive. He’s not seen our day.

Commentaries also provide historical and social information concerning Bible times. Matthew Henry does that better than me, so it’s worth reading more professional commentaries, too.

Okay, on to today’s topic:

Jeremiah 6

We can only do part of this chapter in a blog, obviously. Otherwise, it would be way too long.

v. 10: To whom shall I speak and testify, that they may hear? Behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot listen. Behold, the Word of the Lord is a reproach to them; they have no delight in it.

This verse speaks for itself well enough. There are those that wish to speak the Word of the Lord (in context, this is Yahweh himself), and there are those that just aren’t interested in it because it condemns them.

Let’s go on.

v. 13: For from the least of them to the greatest of them, everyone is given to greediness. From the prophet to the priest, everyone deals falsely.

Isn’t that the way it is today? Our well-known speakers—men like Creflo Dollar, T. D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, and Joel Osteen—are given to greediness and to teaching greediness to others.

It’s important to point out here that Jeremiah is not mentioning this as something good. Nowadays, that’s not clear. It seems a lot of Christians thin that a lust for fame and fortune is a good thing.

God has one more very important charge against these prophets and priests:

v. 14: They have treated the wounds of my people lightly, saying, “Peace, peace!,” when there is no peace.

This verse is significant. The wounds among those known as God’s people are great. They are significant. But when those wounds are pointed out, the priests of the present prosperity cry out, “Peace, peace!”

Listen some time to Christian radio. If you’re willing to listen for a couple hours to Christian talk and preaching, then not a day will go by that you don’t hear some preacher or radio host talk about the sad state of the churches. They’ll mention division, worldliness, a lack of care for one another, the immorality of church members and how very much like the world the churches are.

That’s alright for them to do because they are offering “light” treatment. They want you to pray a little more, or read your Bible a little more, or assuage your conscience by giving to this or that charity (or worse, to them to pad their pockets more than they already are).

Those of us, however, who are calling for radical treatment are not borne so lightly. We are outcasts, and when we point out the very same problems that the radio hosts point out, those problems are denied. The cry of “Peace, peace!” goes out with great vehemence, loud enough to silence us, much as the Ephesians silenced Paul with their shouts about their goddess Artemis.

And so they go merrily along, racing towards judgment because God does not take immorality, greediness, division, selfishness, and worldliness as lightly as the prophets and priests of our modern churches do.

I have mentioned prosperity preachers, but please don’t be confused. Worldliness, division, and lack of care is as apparent in almost all the churches of institutional Christianity. It is not limited to the prosperity churches.

Because the leaders of the people of God were not “ashamed” about treating their wounds lightly, God said, “They shall fall among them that fall.”

There will be a day of reckoning! Here or there!

God’s Solution

But God has a solution:

v. 16: Thus says the Lord, “Stand by the roads and look. Ask for the ancient paths, what is the good way, and walk in them. Then you shall find rest for your souls.

People hate restorationists. They prefer to adapt the message to the modern age.

Surely it’s apparent that there must be some adaptation. Every culture has problems and evils that are different from other cultures. However, their cannot be so much adaptation that the ancient paths are lost.

It is God who said, “Ask for the ancient paths … and walk in them.”

Today denominationalism is accepted even though it is such an obvious form of division that the world scoffs at the inability of “Christians” to get along. We should have known this would be the case. Jesus prayed that his disciples would be as united with one another as he is with the Father. He said that this would be proof to the world that the Father sent him (Jn. 17:20-23).

There is only two responses to this. One, we “Christians” repent and unite.

This course is impossible, as all “Christians” admit. Why is it impossible? Because things are the way they are, and “Christians” aren’t interested enough in pleasing Jesus Christ to actually ask for the ancient paths and walk on them. They’d rather have their wounds treated superficially, with a little more prayer and Bible study—or at least with talking about more prayer and Bible study.

Which brings us to the second response. Two, we admit that these aren’t Christians, but satanic counterfeits raised up by the devil to bring dishonor to the name of Jesus Christ. Then, we discontinue our fellowship with them, obey Jesus Christ, and deny ourselves enough to unite with those that we have difficulty uniting with.

Getting Down to Practicalities

Unite on what basis? Who are the true Christians, and who are the satanic counterfeits? Isn’t it arrogant to try and sort them? Isn’t that an attempt to divide the wheat from the tares, a process that’s supposed to wait until judgment day?

No, it’s not. It’s Biblically commanded. We are not to have fellowship with wicked people, but we are to put them out from among us.

Not only that, we are not to confuse a Christian club that meets twice a week to give long speeches about the Bible with an actual Scriptural church. Churches meet, that’s true. But a meeting—and certainly not a meeting place—is not the church.

The church is a family, the household of God. Use what you know about a functional family to form a picture in your mind of the church. Don’t use the Moose Lodge or Boy Scouts to get your picture.

Really, pause a minute and think. Do you get what I’m saying?

Okay, that said, on what basis can you unite. Who are the true Christians, and who are the satanic counterfeits?

Unfortunately, the answer to that is pretty long. But I’ll tell you what. Here in the next few minutes, I will put up an unfinished, unedited version of a booklet I call The Sure Foundation of God. You can open it up and download it for free. The formatting is pitiful at the moment, but it’s no problem to read. It’s also not done, but the unfinished parts will only provide smoothness, no additional information. It will make a great study guide, even if it’s a less than adequate booklet.

That booklet will provide a good start on answering that question.

It’s 1:38 Central Standard Time on Dec. 31, 2009. Give me about half an hour to get back here with a link for the booklet.

It only took 14 minutes: Just click here. It’s a .pdf, so you may need to right click and save.

Posted in Bible, Church, Holiness, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Proof Is in the Pudding: Jesus Approves the Scientific Method

Posted on 12/29/2009 by Paul Pavao

It is a basic premise of the scientific method that you need to prove what you believe.

When Albert Einstein suggested that massive objects can exert enough gravitational pull to bend space, he had to prove it. The way he did that was by waiting for a total eclipse, then looking for a star that was known to be behind the sun. Despite the fact that it was behind the sun, the star could be seen in the darkness of the eclipse next to the sun.

That was possible because space around the sun is bent by the sun’s gravitational pull. Light bends with it, so the light from that star curves slightly as it passes the sun, making it visible to Einstein when he looked for it.

We can learn from Einstein.

Unproven Christian Theories

Today, everyone fancies themselves a Bible interpreter. A little reading, a little revelation from the Holy Spirit, and, bing!, they’re ready to teach the rest of us what’s true.

We could learn something from science. It’s high time for those who say their Bible interpretations are true to prove they’re true.

Is that not what Jesus taught?

Beware of false prophets … You shall know them by their fruit … Every healthy tree brings forth good fruit, but a rotten tree brings forth evil fruit. A healthy tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, nor can a rotten tree bring forth good fruit … Therefore, by their fruit you will know them. (Matt. 7:15-20)

Today we think that true and false prophets (or teachers) are known by our agreement or disagreement with their Bible interpretation.

Not according to Jesus. According to Jesus, they are known by their results.

Do their teachings produce believing people full of grace (Eph. 2:8-9) that produce good works (Eph. 2:10), a zealousness for good works (Tit. 2:14; 3:8), and love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith (1 Tim. 1:5)? This should be the fruit of a good teacher, not Bible interpretations that you agree with.

Who are you, and why should your interpretation of a Bible passage be significant to any teacher, to God, or even to you yourself?

Testing what you think

Today I read an article about friction. We all understand friction. My foot slides on ice, and it does not slide on my carpet. That’s because ice provides little friction while my carpet provides much friction, as any rug-burned child can testify.

It turns out, however, that we don’t know what causes friction. We think rough surfaces provide friction and smooth surfaces don’t, but scientists have been able to prove that isn’t true. (Compare flat rubber with roughed-up ice, for example.)

One scientist came up with a brilliant idea. He speculated that electrons moving across the surface of the two materials cause drag (friction).

The article’s response to this speculation is worth noting:

It was an exciting idea, but was it right? Krim had just the tool to test this hypothesis: a quartz microbalance.

Oh, that we Christians would respond the same way! “That’s an exciting Bible interpretation, but is it right?”

I read a similar article about viral videos.

In this case, the author of the article was asked to find out what causes a video to go viral (i.e., to become wildly popular by word of mouth). However, the author’s bosses were not going to simply take his word for it. He had to prove he understood it by making a viral video himself!

These non-Christians understand what Jesus said: The proof is in the pudding.

Christian Examples

I’ll give an example. I’ve been listening to a brilliant teaching about Christian leadership for nearly 30 years. This teaching says that Christian leaders should be “among” the flock rather than lording over it. It emphasizes the fact that Jesus said we have only one Master—the Lord himself—and that we are all brothers.

This teaching, on the surface, is obviously true. It’s not a Bible interpretation; it’s practically a Bible quote. It pulls from 1 Peter 5:2 and Matt. 23:8 almost verbatim.

Great, no problem there. We are definitely allowed to quote the Bible.

The problem is that those who taught me those things applied it by opposing all authoritative leadership. They encouraged leaders to let the people of God be “connected directly to the head” and be led by Jesus Christ wherever he would lead them.

We have now left quoting the Bible, and we are teaching an application based on Bible interpretation. At that point, we need to ask, “Is this true?,” which is the equivalent of asking, “Does this work?”

Since I am not speaking hypothetically, I will answer that question for you. It is not true, and it does not work.

This form of leadership is espoused by Gene Edwards and Frank Viola throughout their very popular books. I have watched many house churches apply their leadership advice for around 25 years now.

To this day I do not know of one house church that has grown and prospered with that sort of leadership. In fact, I do not know of one movement in the history of Christianity that has experienced growth in size, spirituality, or power except based on the strong, authoritative leadership of one or more men.

The teaching that shepherds ought to let their flock simply be led by Christ is false. It does not work. It’s fruit is awful … as far as I know, 100% awful. And if the fruit is bad, then the tree is rotten.

Interpreting the Bible Jesus’ Way: By the Scientific Method

We don’t throw out the Bible for “whatever works.” However, when something doesn’t work for anyone at any time and flies in the face of the testimony of church history, then we can be absolutely confident that teaching is false.

The Bible says that leaders should be among the flock. It says that they shouldn’t take the title of “Master,” “Rabbi,” or “Teacher.” It says that leaders should be among the flock, not lording it over them.

This is true. Those are Biblical commands, one from our Lord himself and one from an apostle. We should obey those commands.

The apostle Paul did not lord it over the flock of God. The apostle Paul did not take titles that he should not have had. The apostle Paul was among the flock, not over it.

The apostle Paul was also an authoritative leader who said, “Let him who thinks he is spiritual acknowledge that the things I write are the commands of Christ” (1 Cor. 14:37). He wrote letters in advance to the Corinthian church just so that he would not have to show up and use his “authority, which the Lord has given us for building up and not for your destruction” (2 Cor. 10:8).

Insightful Bible Interpretation?

Is this teaching insightful Bible interpretation on my part?

Not at all! It leaps out at those who are paying attention, as Jesus commanded, to what works. Those people will listen to the right teachers, and they will put the right Scriptures together into the right teaching.

And it will be proven by the results.

A good understanding have all those who do his commandments. (Ps. 111:10)

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

Early Christianity: Do I Have Any Advice?

Posted on 12/28/2009 by Paul Pavao

Someone wrote me telling me that they’re reading the early Christian writings, including David Bercot’s Writings. Then he asked me if I have any advice.

For those that want to live the life that the apostles and early Christians lived, I do have advice. It is as follows:

I can’t really tell what advice you’re asking for. Bercot’s Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up is a terrific introduction to the early Christian writers. I can’t think of anything that motivates people to actually read those writings as well as that book does.

I can give this very general advice. You can see in the early writings just how important the church was to them. That was no surprise to me, as I ran across writings by Gene Edwards on the church almost 30 years ago. Ever since I’ve been longing to be a part of something that resembled the churches in Acts–together, sharing all things, intent on one purpose, sold out for God.

That desire has produced quite a journey over the last 25 years. Having wound up with people who are together, sharing all things, intent on one purpose, and sold out for God, I can testify that the church is just as important to God now as it was 1900 years ago. The Scripture says that all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. That’s most true in the church! What a spiritual impact we make when we join forces with other believers, becoming a real family in Jesus Christ!

Today, we have to have flexibility because people come from such different backgrounds. No matter how much truth we have (or think we have), we have to give people time to come to that truth. However, we don’t have to give people time to make a true, wholehearted commitment to Jesus Christ. You can’t have a church of people other than that.

Yes, there’s always tares. Those are people that say they’re disciples, and maybe they even look like disciples, but they prove over time not to be. We’ll always have people like that in our midst. In the Scriptures and in the early church writings, we see that the churches had people with problems–sometimes bad problems.

Nonetheless, the Gospel preached by the apostles and the early church was that Jesus Christ is Lord and we have to submit to him. Those people need to be gathered, and they need to learn together what’s important to God, laying aside their personal opinions. Even God can’t fill a cup that’s already full.

You’ll see in the early writings what an emphasis they had on following Christ. 1 Clement is a good example, but all the writings are the same. Christians are marked out by denying themselves, not returning evil for evil, honesty, etc.

I’ve given my life to preaching Christ’s Gospel. Deny yourselves, take up your cross, and follow me was his message. He also prayed for our unity, and the early churches put incredible emphasis in the unity of disciples (not merely those who “believe” but are openly disobedient).

My advice is to follow Christ and to do it with all those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

The page I’d direct you to on my web site is my doctrine page. The church I’m a part of is Rose Creek Village, which is at http://www.rosecreekvillage.com. May God grant you grace to follow him and to have brothers and sisters with you as you do!

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

When Protestants Become Catholic: Are the Church Fathers a Danger to Born Again Christians?

Posted on 12/17/2009 by Paul Pavao

Today I read another article about a Protestant becoming Catholic through the reading of the early church fathers. Is this really where the writings of the church fathers lead?

I’ve been reading the writings of the 2nd through 4th century fathers for 20 years now, and I have never thought about becoming Catholic. On the other hand, the person who introduced me to the early church fathers became an Anglican priest–for a while–because the Anglicans claim apostolic succession like the Roman Catholics do.

I don’t think the early church fathers lead in any way toward Catholicism, but there is a reason that people are confused into believing that they do.

It’s because Protestants neither care about nor understand the church.

The Church Is the What???

I read a blog one day by a former Protestant pastor turned Catholic priest. He said the turning point for him was when a Catholic asked him what is “the pillar and support of the truth.”

He answered, of course, that the pillar and support of the truth is the Scriptures. So the Catholic told him, “Why don’t you go read 1 Tim. 3:15.”

1 Tim 3:15 says, of course, that the church, not the Bible, is the pillar and support of the truth.

He was on his way to becoming Catholic.

Which Church?

The question every Protestant will ask himself when he reads 1 Tim. 3:15 is, “Which church?” Which church is the pillar and support of the truth?

The Roman Catholics think it’s obvious. So do I.

But I think the Roman Catholics are obviously wrong. Here’s why.

How Can a Church Be the Pillar and Support of the Truth?

Rather than listening to Catholic reasoning or Protestant reasoning, why don’t we look at what the apostles said about the truth. How was someone supposed to know the truth.

Twice the Scriptures talk about how to escape corrupt men who try to seduce us away from the truth. Once, it’s in Ephesians 4:11-16. There the combination of, one, church leaders equipping us to build the church and , two, speaking the truth in love to one another leads to our being solid in the truth.

The other is 1 Jn. 2:26-27, where John tells us that the anointing will lead us into what is true and not a lie.

One important point Protestants miss when they read 1 Jn. 2:27 is that the “yous” in that verse are plural. The anointing will lead us, not me, into the truth.

Let’s think about this a moment …

How are we being led into truth? How are we being protected from error?

According to Ephesians 4 and 1 John 2, the church–which 1 Tim. 3:15 tells us the pillar and support of the truth–will guide us into truth by the following method:

  1. Church leaders equip us to be beneficial to the church … to build it up (Eph. 4:12)
  2. We speak the truth in love to one another (Eph. 4:13-16)
  3. The anointing–the guidance of God–leads us together into the truth

Now that we’ve got the how, let’s get back to the which …

Which Church Was That Again?

So what church can lay hold of these promises of God? Any church can, right?

No, actually not. Only pliable churches can lay hold of these promises of God. Only churches that can be led by the anointing can lay hold of these promises.

The Roman Catholic Church is not pliable.

Also, only local  churches can lay hold of these promises. You have to have Christians gathering together, seeking God together, and speaking the truth in love to one another. That requires a local church.

The Roman Catholic Church may have some local churches, but it claims to seek and know truth at the heights of hierarchy. It most certainly does not come from “lay” people.

The Roman Catholic Church Has Hijacked the Church Fathers!

Because Protestants have foolishly ignored the wonderful heritage of the apostles–the traditions taught by the apostles themselves and preserved in their early churches–the Roman Catholics have hijacked the fathers. They run an ongoing pretense that the church fathers are Roman Catholic!

They’re not!

There was no “pope” in the early church. Apostolic succession had to do with the preservation of truth, not authority.

The former Episcopal priest mentioned in the article that starts this blog took Cyprian of Carthage as his patron saint. He says:

He’s the one who said, ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’

In fact, Cyprian is one of many early Christians who said such a thing. Ireneaus, for example, writing some 70 years before Cyprian and less than a century after the death of the apostle John, says:

It is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the church; since the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, lodged in her hand most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whoever will, can withdraw from her the water of life. She is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. (Against Heresies, III:4:1)

But which church?

Remember, there was no pope in the church in Irenaeus’ day. In fact, Irenaeus twice had to save the Roman church from the failings of its bishops, once when Victor was being seduced by the Valentinians and once when Eleutherus wanted to split the churches of the empire over the date on which to celebrate Passover (which we now call Easter).

The churches did consult with one another. Irenaeus adds:

Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the the apostles held constant intercourse and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? (ibid.)

Notice, however, that Irenaeus does not suggest consulting Rome. In fact, in the matter of the Valentinians and the dispute over Passover, Rome consulted him!

He recommends going to any church that can answer the question.

The Roman Catholic Church loves to make a big issue out of the fact that Irenaeus listed the succession of bishops in the Roman church from Peter to Irenaeus’ own time. But why did Irenaeus choose Rome?

Since, however, it would be tedious in such a volume as this to reckon up the successions of all the churches … (ibid., III:3:2)

All Irenaeus had was a collection of churches. There was no hierarchy for him to point to as the official organization that offered salvation to the world. When he spoke of a church, he meant a local church, just as Paul and John did when they spoke of the preservation and finding of truth within the church.

Missed By Protestants and Catholics Alike

There is a Protestant translation of the early church fathers called The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Despite being Protestant, they make the same mistake that Roman Catholics do, substituting some denomination or hierarchy for the local church.

In Tertullian’s brilliant work, The Demurrer Against Heretics, he writes about the truth that comes from the apostles through the churches. Yet even though he uses the word “churches,” plural, five times in chapter 21 of that work, the Protestant translators subtitle the chapter, “All Doctrine True Which Comes Through the Church [singular] from the Apostles.”

They’re wrong! All doctrine is true which comes through the churches from the apostles!

It’s part of his argument! He argues, “Is it likely that so many churches, and they so large, should have gone astray into one and the same faith?” (ibid., 28).

Sure it’s likely, if there’s a pope. If there’s no pope, however, and all the churches of his day (A.D. 200 – 220) were independent, then his argument has weight.

Which Church? A Practical Application

I recommend reading the church fathers. I recommend believing that there’s no salvation outside the church. After all, it’s the Scriptures themselves that tell us that if we are not exhorted daily, then we are in danger of hardening by the deceitfulness of sin (Heb. 3:13). You need the church, as Paul argues so effectively in 1 Cor. 12. You cannot tell the other members you don’t need them.

But once you believe there’s no salvation outside the church, then you have to get in the church that those early church fathers were talking about: the local church.

Which one is that?

It’s the one that’s scattered through all the denominations, split up and fighting with one another over stupid doctrines designed by men that are offensive to God.

It’s the one whose members are in fellowship with fakes, trying to reach out to them and smile at them in the pew next to them. They don’t know those people in the pew next to them, but they can be reasonably confident those people do not want to forsake all their possessions for Christ, open their homes to destitute brothers and sisters, or risk their lives ministering in the inner city or overseas. Shoot, those people in the pews haven’t even heard that they can’t belong to Christ if they don’t hate their family, deny themselves, and forsake their possessions (Luke 14:26-33).

We have to rescue that badly-divided, ineffective, almost invisible church. We have to gather those that have heard the Gospel of complete submission to Christ so that they can show the world around them what Jesus can do through people wholly submitted to him.

We have to gather them so that the truth can be gathered once again into the only container that can hold it: the local church.

I have heard a thousand complaints–from supposed but false Christians–about Jesus Christ’s statement that none of us can be his disciple without forsaking all our possessions (Luke 14:33). What does that mean? I’m on a computer. I’m wearing clothes. I’m sitting at a table in a warm house. In what way have I forsaken all my possessions?

That decision isn’t up to me. The truth of Jesus Christ’s statement is revealed and known when set upon “the pillar and support of the truth.” The pillar and support of the truth is a pliable and local church, nothing else.

Radical Christianity and Radical Restoration of the Church

When I say restoration, I don’t mean restoring some doctrine. I mean restoring the local church. I mean gathering those that love God with their whole hearts and who have wholeheartedly submitted to Christ, then letting them know they no longer need to fellowship with half-hearts. In fact, it’s divisive do do so.

That’s radical. Most people would say it’s impossible.

It’s not; it can’t be.

There isn’t any other church, and we need the salvation it possesses. In that church, there is great grace. In that church, there is a power unknown to those who have not experienced the daily fellowship of the local church, a gathered group of disciples, who are being taught by God as he bestows his anointing in subjection to the teaching of the apostles as found in the Scriptures.

Today, there is a huge flow of people leaving institutional Christianity to meet in homes. This is a terrific opportunity to be taught of God! This is a terrific opportunity to throw off denominational bonds and unite the disciples!

It needs two things:

  1. It needs to preach a true Gospel. Jesus calls us to wholeheartedly abandon our lives to follow him.
  2. It needs pliability and flexibility. It must be able to be taught by God. It cannot be focused on or based in doctrine carried over from denominations based in intellectual interpretations of the Scripture. The Scripture was written to produce good works in disciples (2 Tim. 3:16-17), not create ridiculous reasonings and doubtful disputations.

It’s worth it.

Posted in Church, History | Tagged , , , , , , , | 35 Comments

Lights to Rule the Day and Night

Posted on 12/12/2009 by Paul Pavao

Genesis 1:14-19 describes the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the 4th day.

Think about that sentence a moment.

What sort of days happen without the sun, moon, or stars? Can we really be discussing 24-hour days,  whether or not Genesis says there was an evening and a morning, when there’s no sun?

Some 1800 years ago, a respected Christian teacher, an elder in the church in Caesarea, wrote:

Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars—the first day even without a sky? (Origen, De Principiis, V:1:16)

Did Origen simply reject the authority of Scriptures because he thought that no one with any sense could fathom days without a sun? No, he adds:

In [the Scriptures] were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the case, to an examination of the inner meaning. (ibid.)

In other words, because the historical order is impossible, we’re supposed to look for the hidden meaning.

That’s what we’ve been doing for the first three days of creation.

A Greater and Lesser Light

Have you ever noticed that the sun is not called the sun in Genesis one? It’s called the greater light that rules the day. And the moon is not called the moon; it is called the lesser light that rules the night.

It doesn’t take great insight to see the “hidden” meaning of night, darkness, day, and light in the Scriptures. We Christians are “children of the light and of the day” (1 Thess. 5:5). Jesus once said that “night is coming, in which no man can work.” In the same Scripture he says, “I must work while it is still day” (Jn. 9:4).

Despite the fact that Jesus said it was day while he was here, and that night was coming when he left. However, though he refers to himself as the light of the world, Paul also refers to the church as the light of the world. Why is it night if Jesus left us as the light of the world in his place?

Genesis one answers that for us. Jesus is the greater light. He rules the day. The church, however, is the lesser light that rules the night.

Like the moon, the church has no light of its own. Its light is the light of Jesus Christ. It’s job is not to produce its own light. Its job is to behold the light of the sun by rising above the earth, then reflecting that light to those who dwell in darkness.

Like the moon, the church has waxed and waned throughout its history, varying the amount of light there has been on the earth.

The Stars

Stars are said to represent all sorts of things in Scripture.

When we enter our glory, Paul says that we will vary in glory as the stars do. Jesus Christ himself is represented by the morning star, which is actually a planet: Venus. (Depending on where Venus is at in relation to the earth, it can also be the evening star.) Angels are also represented by stars in Rev. 12 (possibly), where satan is said to throw down 1/3 of the stars from heaven.

In fact, in that same chapter, twelve stars represent the tribes of Israel in a figure pulled from Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37.

Signs and Seasons

In Genesis 1, though, stars are particularly said to be in the sky for signs and seasons.

A star led the magi to Israel when Christ was born. Stars are also the only indicators, besides the weather, of what season we are in. Today we have calculated the orbit of the earth so precisely that we can simply count the days of the year on a calendar. That calendar, and the number of the days of the year, are based on the stars. Humans can tell that we’ve made one circumnavigation of the sun by stars returning to the same position that they were in the year before.

Today we recognize from the calendar that the beautiful constellation of Orion begins to rise in the east at dusk around this time of year with Sirius, the dogstar and the brightest star there is, following behind it. In the past, however, it worked the opposite way. Humans knew that winter was coming on because Orion and Sirius began to rise in the east in the evening. No matter the temperature, they knew that winter was about to come on hard and full (assuming they lived in the northern hemisphere).

The early church taught that these cycles are a sign of resurrection. God has set nature in continual cycle. The earth goes to sleep over winter, but it rises anew each spring. The days shrink to minimal length, but they climb again to warmth and long hours of light.

Early Christians marveled at the orderliness of nature. Today we can explain all of this. Orbits, gravity, and other natural laws can cause us to lose our sense of wonder. No matter how much we appreciate the incredible knowledge science has garnered, may we never lose our sense of wonder. It has been set deep inside us by God.

David wrote:

Day to day utters speech, and night after night gives knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. (Ps. 19:2-3)

It is good to stand in awe. Whether the orbit and spin of the earth happened by gravity compressing clouds of molecules into a spherical planet over a billion years or by divine fiat in an instant, it is the hand of God that put us where we are, spinning as we do at nearly 1,000 mph and circling the sun at 66,000 mph, this earth and its cycles are technological marvels that should move us to “be still and know that he is God” (Ps. 46:10).

It is in us to do, that awe placed deep in our hearts by the very breath of God.

The Testimony of God

To me, more than anything, day 4 of creation represents the testimony of God to who he is. The more we learn of the heavens, the more majestic God appears. As we’ve grown, our God has grown as well–or at least our understanding of him has.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork.

Truly, we can say with God that we see that it is good.

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