The Gnostic Attempt at an Alternate Christian History

Posted on 06/19/2009 by Paul Pavao

I don’t know if you run across the modern gnostic attempt at an alternate Christian history much, but it’s in the news a lot. The Da Vinci Code borrows a lot from Hugh Schonfield’s The Passover Plot, and Dan Brown, the author, likes to quote Elaine Pagels, another modern gnostic who likes to make up her own history.

All of them get lots of press (or in the case of The Passover Plot “got” lots of press).

What prompted this post was a link I was sent to a web page espousing the gnostic interpretation of Genesis. It has some interesting ideas and some interesting arguments, but in the end you have to ignore a lot of history for those interpretations to make any sense.

Let’s look at this.

The Gnostic Interpretation of Genesis

The author, Stephen Hoeller, tells us that the “orthodox view” of Genesis is that it is “history with a moral.” To orthodox Christians and Jews “Adam and Eve were considered to be historical figures, the literal ancestors of our species.”

The gnostic interpretation, he says, is not so. Instead, “The Gnostic Christians who authored the Nag Hammadi scriptures did not read Genesis as history with a moral, but as a myth with a meaning. To them, Adam and Eve were not actual historical figures.”

I’m fine with that. Many early “orthodox” Christians didn’t consider Adam and Eve to be actual historical figures, either. Origen, for example, said it was “foolish” to believe that God planted a tree, as though he were a farmer, so that if someone bit into it with bodily teeth they would obtain life (Against Celsus IV:1:16).

The problem does not lie in the gnostics suggesting that Adam and Eve were not literal historical figures, but in the interpretation that is given later. Hoeller tells us that the gnostic treatise, The Testimony of Truth, looks at Genesis in this way:

After extolling the wisdom of the serpent, the treatise casts serious aspersions on the creator.

The gnostic work, The Hypostasis of the Archons, is said to teach:

The serpent was similarly inspired by the same supernatural wisdom … then taught Adam and Eve about their source, informing them that they were … not mere slaves of the creator deity.

He goes on to say that the Creator has an “unfavorable image … contrasted with the favorable one of Adam, Eve, and even of the serpent.”

Uh huh.

Did Stephen Hoeller forget whose story this is?

Putting Interpretation in the Light of Real History

This gnostic interpretation of Genesis suggests that the Creator is the bad guy, who should be forsaken in order to adhere to another, higher god that has made himself known through the various gnostic teachers.

I have to wonder if they noticed that they have made the Creator the bad guy based on stories that they don’t believe really happened. They don’t like how the Creator behaved in the story of Adam and Eve, but they don’t seem remember that according to their own interpretation the Creator didn’t behave any way at all. The story never happened!

Adam and Eve is a Jewish story. Whether you believe it is literal history or not, it is in the Hebrew Scriptures, and it is not found anywhere else. For the gnostics to come along 1500 years after Moses and make it theirs is nonsensical.

We Christians have come along and made that story ours, but we have also surrendered ourselves to the God that gave the Jews that story. We believe that Christianity is the continuation and fulfillment of the Jewish religion, not a correction of it.

More Real History: The Matter of Jesus Christ

Those who are proposing this alternate Christian history argue that the gnostics may well have been the first, original, and true Christians.

The first problem with this is that there’s no evidence for it. Not one gnostic text can be certainly or even likely dated to the first century

The second problem  with this is that everything in gnosticism, including gnostic literature, is reactionary. None of it is original.

The Adam and Eve story belongs to the Jews. The gnostics took the Jewish story and corrupted it. Their whole system begins with the Hebrew Scriptures, which they did not write or have any part in, and goes from there to the myth of a false deity–Yahweh, the God of the Jews–that they say is the produce of a being, Sophia, that they invented and said was produced by the true god, who is unknowable and has never done anything on earth at all.

How are they supposed to know this? Their claim is that they learned this in some way from Jesus Christ, who they claim was sent by the emanations (or aeons) of their unknowable god who has never done anything.

The problem here is that the only known companions of Jesus Christ are the apostles, and they all said that Yahweh, the God of the Jews and the Creator in Genesis, is the true God and the Father of Jesus Christ.

Here again, the gnostics simply steal history. Their works are full of references to the apostles, trying to explain why Jesus would have given them false knowledge, while he passed true knowledge on to someone else.

Of course, in gnostic literature who that person is varies. The only consistent thing about those who supposedly received true knowledge of Jesus is that they left us no writings and we have no good historical way to verify that they really received anything from Jesus at all.

In the Gospel of Thomas, it’s Thomas. That’s convenient. He’s one of the apostles who left us no writings. So you can say anything you want about Thomas, and there’s no written evidence to refute you.

The problem is that the churches that were formed by the known apostles all tell us that Thomas went to India. If you go to India, you will find churches that say that they were founded by Thomas. And, surprise!, those churches teach exactly what Peter, Paul, John, and James taught, that the Creator in Genesis is the true God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who did not give “capricious” commandments, but spoke the words of life.

In the gnostic Gospel of Mary, it’s Mary Magdalene who knows more than the apostles. In the Gospel of Judas, it’s Judas who was given the secret message that the God of Israel is a false God.

Does it sound a little like someone made something up and then tried to borrow the authority of people who are actually known to history to justify their fantasy?

The Interesting Link to Mormonism

I don’t know if you’ve ever read The Book of Mormon, but it’s interesting. About a third of it is quoted word for word from the King James Version of the Bible, which would have been the most common English Bible in the early 1800’s, when Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was attending a Christian church.

The sections quoted from the King James Bible have some interesting additions. There are definitely places in the New Testament where we are left wondering exactly what Jesus meant by something he said. Not in The Book of Mormon. In The Book of Mormon fascinating and plausible explanations are inserted into the King James text so that these difficult sayings of Jesus are not so difficult anymore.

If those parts of The Book of Mormon were the only parts, and if The Book of Mormon were being sold as a commentary on Scripture, I’d have no objections to it. Some of the added explanations seemed pretty brilliant to me. Joseph Fielding Smith was a smart man.

The problem was, Joseph Smith wasn’t interested in publishing a commentary on the Bible. He was interested in starting a new religion, but he didn’t have the authority to do so.

Where did he get it?

From Jesus! He simply invented a history where Jesus came over to America after his resurrection and appointed twelve apostles from among the Jews in America.

Oh, you didn’t know the Jews were in America in the 1st century A.D.?

No problem, Joseph invented that history, too, though he made a few mistakes that stand out to someone who knows the real, actual, and verifiable history that Christians believe.

Not Theory, but Reality

We Christians have a big leg up on the gnostics. Our history is real. The gnostics had to steal it, and then they had to try to adapt and explain it because our history proves their theories to be false.

This is one of the reasons that it’s good for Christians to know their history. Martin Luther and John Calvin, for example, taught doctrines that were completely unknown to any Christians anywhere for three or more centuries after Christ.

Try to explain that! How exactly did true doctrines, found in the Bible that was read by Christians whose churches were founded by apostles, get missed by every Christian in existence from the time of the apostles until well after the Church had degenerated into a state church?

It didn’t. Those new doctrines are false because they are not founded in history.

Baptism is another example. The purely symbolic baptism believed by most evangelicals in America is even newer than the 16th century, when Martin Luther and John Calvin were preaching. It’s unknown to all Christians from the time of the apostles until the 17th century!

How likely is it that this doctrine is true?

Some of our worst doctrinal arguments would disappear if we grounded our faith in history. The apostles really started churches. They really preached the Gospel to those churches. Those churches wrote letters to one another, letters to people in the world, defenses of the Gospel to Roman emperors, refutations of heretics, and stories about major events in their life.

How smart is it for us to ignore those things?

Not very, but we’re ignoring them almost across the board.

Thank God those early apostolic churches battled through issues like the eternality of the Son of God, the truth of the Incarnation, and the hope of the resurrection, judgment, and eternal life. It’s hard to avoid holding on to those things because the early churches embodied them in a creed so that we wouldn’t lose them like we’ve lost everything else.

Otherwise, our complete lack of historical  foundation might have made us already gnostics in disguise.

Posted in History, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

“Alternative” (read “Fake,” “Fraudulent,” or “False”) Christian Histories

Posted on 06/13/2009 by Paul Pavao

Okay, I just put up a blog minutes ago. Rather than go edit it immediately (and probably too quickly) as I normally do, I’m going to rant about false, fraudulent, fake, feigning, and phony historians like Elaine Pagels and Dan Brown.

Fume, fume, fuss, fuss …

Just gets my ire up! Listen to this utter nonsense and blasphemy from some inventor of imaginary history:

Pauline/Roman Christians: When the Roman-backed instance of Christianity went in search of the ancient centers of Christianity, they discovered to their horror that the Ebionites and Gnostics pre-dated them. Their un-Christian answer was to edit verses, burn books, arrest and harass the other poverty-stricken Christians until no opposition was left. The form of Christianity that we have inherited from the Roman Empire is far from what Christianity originally was.

This voice for the devil was actually published. He has the amazingly apt name of Vexen Crabtree, and his book is Types of Christianity: Who Were the Original Christians?

Isn’t it amazing that after 2,000 years, Vexen Crabtree managed to dig up these verses, books, and records that the Pauline Christians burned! Thank God this person came along to reveal the truth to all of us!

…

Excuse me a second, someone’s telling me something.

…

Oh, no verses?

No books? No records?

What, was Vexen Crabtree there? This person’s immortal or something? Maybe this person had a vision or a revelation from God?

…

How do these people get published? They just get to write whatever they want and invent history?

Where did Vexen Crabtree get his/her information from? He invented it!

Some Useful Applications of This Rant of Mine

1. When someone tells you all the evidence has been destroyed:

… then what they’re telling you is a fantasy invented in their own mind.

You only find history through evidence, and when all the evidence has been destroyed, then no one knows the history; especially the idiot who’s trying to con you into believing his latest conspiracy theory.

2. If 1st or 2nd century Christians had successfully obliterated some sect …

… then they’d be bragging about it!

1st and 2nd century Christians had no political power. They had only the strength of their arguments for the truth. Thus, they were happy to speak and write against heretics.

You’d know that they found heretical sects when they got to a city because they’d tell you about overcoming them by the preaching of the Gospel!

3. If 4th century Christians or later obliterated some sect …

… then nothing Vexen Crabtree says would apply. Christians filled the entire Roman empire in the 1st century. They didn’t have any political power, however, until the 4th century. So they couldn’t have burned books and driven out heretics until that time period or later.

If they persecuted heretics in the 4th century–and they did, persecuting pagans and sects alike–that’s bad, but it has nothing to do with Vexen Crabtree’s premise. The Christians were already everywhere in the 4th century. They couldn’t find “Ebionites and Gnostics” there first in the 4th century.

Final Note

Here’s a guy making the historically ignorant claim that “Rome-backed Christians” found out that “Ebionites and Gnostics” beat them to “the ancient centers of Christianity,” and someone actually published that nonsense!

To this day, there is not one gnostic writing that is even probably written in the first century. There is not one comment by any Christian suggesting this conspiracy invented by Mr. Crabtree.

Simply put, this history is invented from thin air and wishful thinking.

I have a page on gnosticism at my Christian history site. I recommend a book there that addresses all the phony history invented by Elaine Pagels, Dan Brown, and others.

I can personally tell you that none of their fantasy histories makes a lick of sense in light of the history we do know. They have to rewrite the history of the early Christian churches, which is certain and clear, in order to fit in the history they invent.

It irritates the stew out of me that they get published, and, worse, that they get publicity.

I hope you’ll take the time to learn the truth; it’s the surest defense against error.

Posted in History | Tagged , | 3 Comments

John Calvin and the Church

Posted on 06/13/2009 by Paul Pavao

It’s funny that while I’m doing a series on Calvinism, I ran by chance across some statements by John Calvin on the Church. They’re pretty amazing.

I found these in Volume VIII of Philip Schaff’s History of  the Christian Church, an excellent eight-volume history written in the late 19th century. In fact, in the introduction he mentions celebrating the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America “last month.” I felt like I’d been transported in a time machine.

Anyway, he extensively quotes Calvin on the Church. You’ve got to hear this. If I posted this with no name, you would insist a Roman Catholic wrote it.

Our present design is to treat of the visible Church …

There is no other way of entrance into life, unless we are conceived by her, born of her, nourished at her breast, and continually preserved under her care and government …

We must continue under her instruction and discipline to the end of our lives. It is also to be remarked that out of her bosom there can be no hope of remission of sins, or any salvation, according to the testimony of Isaiah (37:32) and Joel (2:32); which is confirmed by Ezekiel (13:9). …

In these words the paternal favor of God, and the peculiar testimony of the spiritual life, are restricted to his flock, to teach us that it is always fatally dangerous (latin: exitialis) to be separated from the Church. (Schaff, vol. VIII, p. 450-1; from Calvin’s Institutes IV, ch. 1, emphasis mine)

Wow. Are stronger words possible?

Is Calvin Unusual?

Nowadays. But let me tell you something: everyone would have agreed with him from the 2nd century down to his time.

What Calvin says here is just not exeptional. It’s perfectly normal.

Augustine is regularly faulted by Protestants for saying there is no salvation outside the church of Rome–which I don’t believe he said; it would be anachronistic except in certain contexts–but you can find the statement that there’s no salvation outside of the church in the writings of Christians from the 2nd century onwards.

In fact, you can find it in 1 John, too, where John tells us that those who go out from us were never of us (2:19).

The Real Question: What Church?

Ah, now we get to the real issue. What does Calvin mean?

After all, Calvin left the Roman Catholic Church.

It was difficult to sort through what he said about this. Apparently, he argues that he’s not leaving the Church, he’s just charging its pope and priests with error. He appeals to the example of Jeremiah (specifically) and the prophets (generally) to justify doing so.

He writes:

We neither dissent from the Church, nor are aliens from her communion.

and:

[We are assailed] with this battering ram, ‘Nothing can excuse withdrawal from the Church.’ We deny out and out that we do so. (ibid., p. 453)

The problem is, he doesn’t say what church he is not withdrawing from.

He could be meaning two things. He could mean that he’s not withdrawing from the Roman Catholic Church, the only church existing (for all practical purposes) in his day. Or, he could mean that he’s not withdrawing from the true Church–which is something different than the Roman Catholic Church.

In fact, he writes:

We are as ready to confess as they are that those who abandon the Church, the common mother of the faithful, the ‘pillar and ground of the truth,’ revolt from Christ also; but we mean a Church which, from incorruptible seed, begets children for immortality, and, when begotten, nourishes them with spiritual food … and which … preserves entire the truth which God deposited in its bosom.

Well, now, that’s convenient, isn’t it? We only have to stay connected–visibly, here on earth–to “the Church” if it’s a Church that “preserves entire the truth.”

Is Calvin Hypocritical?

This isn’t meant to be an attack on John Calvin. If I was going to do that, I’d pick a different subject.

This is meant to address us. Many Christians today have forgotten the importance of the Church. They claim to need the Bible alone, but they must mean they need it to sleep with at night like a teddy bear because they sure don’t mean “pay attention to what it says and do it.” Anyone who says, “All I need is Jesus and my Bible” is ignoring the teachings of their Bible. (Re: Eph. 4:11-16; Heb. 3:13; and a lot of others)

But let’s use Calvin as our example. Obviously, not being Roman Catholic myself, I think it was okay–no, good and necessary–for Calvin to leave the Roman Catholic Church. However, let’s consider some things he said and apply them to ourselves in today’s world.

It is extreme arrogance in us, if we presume immediately to withdraw from the communion of a Church, where the conduct of all its members is not compatible either with our judgment or even with the Christian profession. …

The desperate impiety of the Pharisees, and the dissolute lives everywhere led by the people, could not prevent [Christ and the apostles] from using the same sacrifices, and assembling in the same temple with the others, for the public exercise of religion. … the society of the wicked could not contaminate those who, with pure consciences, united with them in the same solemnity. (ibid., p. 451)

So,  which is it? Do we follow what Calvin says is the example of the apostles and stay in communion with a church even if its leaders are “desperately impious” and its people live dissolute lives?

Or do we follow what Calvin did, and leave a church because it doesn’t “preserve entire the truth which God deposited in its bosom”?

And how do we know  whether it has preserved entire the truth which God gave it unless we take up that “extreme arrogance” of declaring that their truth is not compatible with our judgment?

My Solution:

1. The Church Is Local

The very definition of the work ekklesia, which I believe to be carefully chosen by God (it is, after all, easy for God to be careful about such things), means something local. It was in common use in Greek-speaking areas of 1st century Rome, and it meant the citizens of a town.

The church is the ekklesia of God in a town, in contrast to the already-existing ekklesia of men in that town.

Applying the word church or ekklesia to a hierarchy above the local city or township is a misuse of the word.

2. It’s Relationship That Matters

God is never concerned about your relationship to an organization; he’s concerned about your relationship to people. That’s why Jesus says “wherever two or three are gathered in my name” (Matt. 18:20).

So when Calvin, with the rest of the town of Geneva separated from the Roman Catholic Church, they weren’t separating from anything at all. They didn’t divide anything. What they broke away from might as well not have existed. It was nothing, and it had no authority instituted by God.

We tend to get confused about God, as though there’s some cosmic, eternal rules that he feels subject to or bound to. No, God has reasons for what he does, and those reasons are based in love.

We have to stay together because we need each other, not because there’s some cosmic rule about membership in a church being necessary to salvation. Instead …

  • We need to be exhorted to stay away from sin; otherwise, we will fool ourselves (Heb. 3:13).
  • None of us are sufficient in ourselves to reflect and shine Christ to the world. So God has provided a vehicle for unity, his Spirit, so that together, each with our own gift from God, Christ might still be seen in the world.

He does this so that hurting, lonely people, without answers and without power to overcome the world or themselves, might be gathered into his family, know God, and be filled with joy.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit (and attainment) of happiness; that is the gift given by the Gospel.

This happiness is not based based on worldly success. It’s based on  relationship with God and with God’s people, so that it can’t be taken away under any circumstance.

Keep this faith, for it benefits everyone.

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

Predestination, Calvinism, and Bible Interpretation: Part Three

Posted on 06/08/2009 by Paul Pavao

We have been looking at Calvinism’s TULIP a little bit. I considered going point by point through TULIP–and I still want to do that–but there’s something more important than that.

Does the Scripture ever really bring up Calvinism?

Are the 5 points of Calvinism ever a central discussion of Scripture at any point? In any of the letters? In any of the Gospels?

There’s only one place that Calvinists can make any claim that the Scriptures purposely discuss their 5 points, and that is in Romans 8 through 11.

So today, rather than addressing what Scriptural predestination is not, let’s look at what it is.

Let’s begin with the key Scripture in Romans:

For whom [God] foreknew, these he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

In addition, those he predestined, he also called. Those whom he called, he also justified. Those whom he justified, he also glorified. (Rom. 8:29-30)

Foreknowledge

The question we then have to ask is whom God foreknew. It is the foreknown who are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son.

The problem is, the Scriptures really don’t address whom God foreknew, nor even what he foreknew of them. All it tells us is that he predestined the ones he foreknew, then called, justified, and glorified those who are predestined.

What we do know, however, is that foreknowledge cannot be the same thing as predetermination. Foreknowledge is simply knowing something in advance, not making it happen in advance.

The reason we know this is because the Scriptures uses foreknowledge (epignosko in the Greek) of things we humans know in advance. We know in advance that this age will come to an end.

That foreknowledge, according to 2 Pet. 3:17, should move us to remain steadfast in following Christ.

So we have a tiny bit of information here. The predestined ones are the ones God foreknew. With this Peter agrees, as he tells us in 1 Pet. 1:2 that we are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God.”

Predestination

The other thing we know about God’s choice–about the things God has predetermined–is that he hardened the Israelites so that mercy could be shown to the Gentiles.

We know that he had every right to do that because the potter can make from the clay whatever he wishes to make. God, then, can harden whomever he wills and show mercy to whomever he wills.

And he has willed to show mercy to the Gentiles and harden the Israelites, so that the Israelites may be provoked to jealousy, be confined under unbelief, and wind up obtaining mercy themselves.

Why? Because God wants to show mercy to all (Rom. 11:32).

Calvinism

Where does this leave the 5 points of Calvinism? How does this address Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints?

It doesn’t. This whole passage from Romans 8:29 to the end of Romans 11 never mentions any of those things. It never touches on them, nor does it say anything at all that addresses them.

With two exceptions.

  • Romans 8:29-30 does say that the ones he foreknew are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. He calls, justifies, and glorifies them. So it does address the Perseverance of the Saints–positively.
  • Romans 11:32 says that God wants to show mercy to all, so it addresses Limited Atonement–negatively.

But no other point of Calvinism’s TULIP is even addressed in Romans, and even on these two subjects, they are not central.

Paul’s concern in Romans is his Gospel. He is explaining why the Gentiles are being admitted to God’s people and why salvation is by the Spirit through faith and not by the Law through works.

He is not discussing any of the points of Calvinism.

Calvinism Must Stand on Its Own

Thus, Calvinism has to stand on its own, pulling verses from here and there to establish its new and unusual view of God. It cannot make any claim to be being brought up or purposely discussed in even one passage of Scripture.

And it has a terribly difficult time standing. The Scriptures state repeatedly that God wants all to be saved and all to come to repentance (Rom. 11:32; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9, and many others). Thus, Calvinism is chopped down at the knees before it really ever gets started.

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

Romans and Calvinism: an Excursion

Posted on 06/01/2009 by Paul Pavao

I’m doing a series on Calvinism and Predestination here on this blog, but I want to make a quick side trip.

I mentioned in the last post that Romans has a series of arguments concerning Jews and Gentiles and the righteousness of faith vs. the righteousness of the Law.

I believe the first of those arguments is the most important one, and I believe most people don’t even know Paul is presenting an argument!

Romans 1: Justification As a Defense of the Gospel

We all quote Romans 1:16: “I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.”

Have we ever asked, however, why Paul has to say he’s not ashamed?

The reason is pretty obvious from the first half of Romans. Paul is writing to Christians who have not met him. Most of  them are Jewish, and they have heard that he is preaching a righteousness apart from the Law.

They think this is bad, and they are quoting him as saying things like, “Let us do evil that good may come” (Rom. 3:8).

So Paul writes to these Christians in Rome to defend and correctly explain his Gospel.

After a few introductory statements, he launches right into his defense: “I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ …”

Why not?

The Power of the Gospel of Christ

Paul says why not immediately:

It is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes; to the Jew first, but also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith. (vv. 16-17)

Nowadays we like to use verses like this as an argument that we don’t have to be righteous to go to heaven. That’s ridiculous. We’ve been warned–by Paul, the very one who wrote these verses in Romans–not to be deceived into believing such nonsense.

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

Paul is arguing the very opposite!

I’m not ashamed of the Gospel, Paul says, because whenever I preach it, the people who believe it experience the power of God to salvation. They live righteously, and their righteousness is not just any righteousness, but is the righteousness of God being revealed in them from faith to faith.

Have you ever heard a better argument for the Gospel? Who can stand up against that argument?

Watch this Gospel at work! I have nothing to apologize for, and I have nothing to be ashamed of. The righteousness of God himself is revealed in it.

That’s what Paul is saying.

Is That Really What Paul Is Saying?

Why doubt it? Should we doubt it because nowadays so many people believe that righteousness is imputed even when it’s not imparted?

No matter how many modern scholars and lexicons say that justification in the Greek means right standing with God rather than righteous living, the New Testament itself–in Greek or English–makes it clear that they’re wrong, wrong wrong …

… Eternally and dangerously wrong.

Little children, don’t let anyone deceive you. The one that does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. (1 Jn. 3:7)

Clear enough for you?

Now both Paul and John have told you not to be deceived about this doctrine of right standing with God apart from the actual performance of righteousness. So, don’t be deceived!!!

The Righteousness of Faith

Here’s Paul’s description of the righteousness that comes by faith:

For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did … (Rom. 8:3)

Paul has just described what the Law could not do in chapter seven. It can’t cause us to obey God. It may display the righteousness of God and be perfect, holy, and good, but it can’t empower us to obey.

But what the Law could not do, God did!

By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, as an offering for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh … (Rom. 8:3)

Awesome! The Law couldn’t break the power of sin in our flesh, as explained in Romans 7, but Jesus, by the offering of himself, could!!! Hallelujah!

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. 8:4)

Note that the righteous requirement of the Law is not fulfilled in us as we subject ourselves to the Law and to its requirements. It is “fulfilled in us”–happens automatically–if we walk according to the Spirit!

We have to subject ourselves to the Spirit.

What happens if we don’t?

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. 8:13)

He who sows to the flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap everlasting life. Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due season we will reap … if we do not lose heart. (Gal. 6:8-9)

That’s probably clear enough.

Conclusion: Back to Romans 1

Let’s not miss the fact that Romans 1-11 is one long series of arguments and explanations of Paul’s Gospel. It’s powerful, and once you see it as a series of arguments and explanations, it’s quite clear.

The first argument is: Those who hear my Gospel experience the power of God that produces righteousness, and that righteousness is produced from faith to faith, so I don’t apologize for preaching faith rather than Law.

Is that what we can say about our Gospel?

Then maybe we had better change our Gospel because if we believe Paul is inspired by God, then God doesn’t think very highly of false gospels (Gal. 1:8-9).

Jesus’ Gospel involves giving up your entire life and having no attachment to this world at all (Luke 14:26-33).

I love church history, and I can tell you that no other Gospel has ever produced the results Paul spoke of. Just the one that says, “Forsake everything for Christ.”

The others all produce what you see around you. You decide which one you want, which one is Biblical, and which one will gain you favor at the judgment.

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

Calvinism, Predestination, and Bible Interpretation; Part Two

Posted on 06/01/2009 by Paul Pavao

Well, since Britt–a dear friend of ours and a good, godly man–has put it on my mind with his comment, let me make part two to cover Romans 9-11.

I need to keep this short enough for a blog, which will be a lot of work for me, so let me get right to the point:

Does Romans 9 say God Only Wants Some To Be Saved?

Let’s admit one thing to the Calvinists. Romans 9 definitely says that God can and may make people for the sake of wrath and dishonor. It is definitely, inarguably true that one of Paul’s arguments is that God can do whatever he wants, including making people that are destined from birth for wrath and destruction (Rom. 9:15-24).

What Calvinists miss is that there is a conclusion to Paul’s argument. Paul’s argument has a purpose!

First, the purpose. The context of Romans since chapter one is Paul’s Gospel of righteousness by faith vs. righteousness by the Law. From chapter one through chapter eleven, he addresses righteousness as it applies to the Jews and as it applies to the Gentiles.

His argument is that both Jews and Gentiles are supposed to obtain righteousness from God by faith, not by the Law.

Now in chapter nine, he tries to make it clear to Jewish Christian readers–his audience from chapters one through ten; he switches to the Gentile Christians in chapter eleven–that he still cares about Israel.

Verses one through five (of ch. 10) say that Israel matters. Verses six through ten says that Israel is not Israel according to the flesh but according to promise.

Then he launches into telling his Jewish Christian readers that God can choose whomever he wants.

The question the Calvinists fail to ask is, whom does God choose? Instead, they assume that their doctrine, that God chooses randomly (unconditionally) is what Paul is talking about.

However, that’s not what Paul is talking about. Paul concludes his section on God’s choice by saying, “… even us, whom he has called, not of the Jews only , but also of the Gentiles” (9:24).

He then quotes Scripture saying that God would choose a people from among those who were never his people.

Jews and Gentiles

The context since chapter one has been Jews and Gentiles. The context in chapter nine continues to be Jews and Gentiles. The context will stay Jews and Gentiles through chapter eleven.

Notice the heart of his “God can choose whomever he wants” argument in 9:18:

Therefore he has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he wills, he hardens.

So on whom does he will to have mercy, and whom does he will to harden? That question needs to be asked.

I speak to you Gentiles (11:13) … I don’t want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery … that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (11:25).

God has hardened the Israelites and shown mercy to the Gentiles.

Calvinism and Bible Interpretation

It is not good or right to pull one argument out of the middle of a long string of arguments that are all about Jews and Gentiles and the righteousness of faith vs. the righteousness of the Law.

Paul’s topic in chapter 9 is not predestination or hardening. Paul’s topic in chapter nine is still Jews and Gentiles and the righteousness of faith vs. the righteousness of the Law.

Predestination, hardening, and God’s choice are arguments meant to advance his case that his Gospel to the Gentiles is true. His purpose is most certainly not to advance a new doctrine not taught anywhere else in Scripture, nor ever believed by any of the churches he or other apostles started.

God, from the beginning, intended to harden the Israelites and show mercy to the Gentiles, not to make random choices about who will be saved because he only wants some to be saved.

Bible Interpretation and Context

If anyone is open to Scriptures being pulled out of context by the Holy Spirit and applied to a unique situation, it’s me. I believe the Scriptures are living oracles, and I believe the Holy Spirit can guide us in interpreting them.

However, that does not mean that we ought to pull an argument out of its context and use it to disagree with the plain teaching of Scripture. In this case, I’m referring to the Calvinists pulling Paul’s argument in Romans 9 out of its context and using it to disagree with all the Scriptures that say God wants everyone to be saved.

Take a look at 2 Peter 3 sometime. What’s the context of that chapter? Well, the context is actually Peter trying to answer those who say the end will never come because it’s not come yet.

Part of his argument is that God is extending the time so that more people can be saved because he wants everyone to come to repentance.

The people being addressed in 2 Peter 3 are all people. The people being addressed in Romans 9 are nations, Jews and Gentiles.

It’s important to keep things straight.

Posted in Bible, History, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Calvinism, Predestination, and Proper Bible Interpretation

Posted on 05/31/2009 by Paul Pavao

Someone once told me that if I wanted to know if a teaching was true, look at what it asks you to do. If it asks you to do something that Scripture also commands, you can probably trust the teaching.

If it asks you to do something different than Scripture commands, throw it out; it’s false.

I heard that 25 years ago. It has served me well for 25 years.

Predestination According to Calvin

I have a lot of problems with the Calvinist version of Predestination.

Since I haven’t read Calvin’s Commentaries or Institutes myself, I’m relying on what I’ve heard from people who call themselves Reformed or Calvinist.

I am also responding to what is known as the 5 points of Calvinism, which make the anagram TULIP. TULIP is:

  • Total depravity
  • Unconditional election
  • Limited atonement
  • Irresistible grace
  • Perseverance of the Saints

Really, I doubt I agree with a single one of those things, but let’s start our short series on Calvinism with the most offensive and ridiculous one …

Limited Atonement

There are at several Scriptures that sound like they were written specifically to refute Calvinism’s Limited Atonement:

  • God our Savior … wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
  • We trust in the Living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe (1 Tim. 4:10).
  • He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2).
  • The Lord is not slow concerning his promise … but is patient toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to a knowledge of the truth (2 Pet. 3:9).

Okay, so a guy comes along 1500 years after these things are written and argues–for the first time in history–that “all men” means just the people who will be saved and that “not any” means not any of the elect.

There’s nothing to argue here. This Limited Atonement teaching is unscriptural nonsense, and the man who teaches it teaches falsehood. Maybe John Calvin had a bad childhood, or maybe he was overly influenced by Luther’s over-reaction to monasticism, or maybe he’s just evil and influenced by the devil. Whatever the cause, if John Calvin taught limited atonement and that God only wants some people to be saved, as people say he did, then he taught error.

Calvinism and Predestination in General

We’ll go into this subject more in the next few days. Maybe we can do each point of Calvinism one by one. Total Depravity seems to be the only one, in my opinion, that has even a small Scriptural basis. However, taking human depravity so far that a person can’t even choose to be saved is taking it too far.

(It also is having too much confidence in your own Bible interpretation; nothing is ever as sure as it seems. “Can’t” and “never” are big words when you start applying them to God and man.)

The rest seems like nonsense to me that disagrees with everything taught by the apostles’ churches.

I mentioned at the start of this post that we ought to see what a teaching tells us to do in order to test it, and we’ll do that as we look at the other points of TULIP.

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

Apostolic Succession: Tradition, Apologetics, and Contending for the Truth

Posted on 05/21/2009 by Paul Pavao

Due to working on Christian History for Everyman, I’ve been slow in posting here. I’m working on a page on apostolic succession, however, and it is perfect for a blog entry.

The line (uh, here I am quoting myself again) that caught my eye was:

Apostolic succession is an argument against the Roman Catholic Church, not for it.

My line was prompted by this wonderful passage from Tertullian’s Demurrer Against Heretics. Tertullian was a lawyer, and a “demurrer” is a legal brief. (Apparently, lawyers could be Christians in A.D.  200. I’ve heard rumors that might be possible even in A.D. 2100, but I haven’t verified those yet.)

Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed … Nor does the Son seem to have revealed [the Father] to any other than the apostles, whom he sent forth to preach …

What that was which they preached … can … properly be proven in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the Gospel directly to them themselves, both viva voce, as the phrase is, and afterwards by their letters.

If, then, these things are so, it is equally apparent that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches, those molds and original sources of the faith, must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God. In the same way, all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of disagreement with the truth of the church and apostles of Christ and God. …

We have fellowship with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is not in any way different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.

– Demurrer Against Heretics 21

Sorry for all those ellipses. Tertullian is more wordy even than me, and he can’t resist any opportunity–in fact, he creates as many opportunities as possible–to inject some explanatory comment. His rabbit trails have rabbit trails.

However, he’s one of the most logical thinkers among the early Christian writers.

Perfect lawyer.

What Is Apostolic Succession?

 Tertullian makes it clear that truth comes from God. God gave it to Christ, Christ gave it to the apostles, and the apostles committed it to the churches. Thus, the churches became the standard of truth.

This is the reason that Paul says that the Church, the household of God, is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

The Roman Catholic Church, somewhere down through the centuries, went completely crazy and decided that since they were the standard of truth, they had the right to change the truth at will.

The Roman Catholic Church, however, is not the standard of truth. The apostolic churches were the standard of truth.

Apostolic succession, to Tertullian and his contemporaries, was a way of arguing that their churches, a mere hundred years removed the apostles, had received truth from the apostles and maintained it unchanged.

Apostolic Succession as Proof of Pristine (Unchanged) Truth

Tertullian’s argument from apostolic succession was limited. Such an argument could prove that the church to which he belonged and the ones with which they were in fellowship had received truth from the apostles 100 years earlier. It could not prove they had kept it pure.

For that he had to resort to a stronger argument:

Is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? … Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but tradition. (ibid. 28)

Little different view of tradition than what the Roman Catholics tell you about, isn’t it? Tradition is authoritative, just as they say, but only if that tradition came from the apostles.

Think about this argument. Tertullian’s argument assumes that there is no central authority in the church. Notice that he mentions  “that which is deposited among many.”

Tertullian’s argument falls apart if there is a central authority–a pope, or a supreme church in Rome–that can dictate doctrine. In that case, it would be extremely likely that so many churches, no matter how great, would go astray into one and the same faith because one man, the pope, could have dictated it.

Tertullian doesn’t mention this, however, because he’d never heard of a pope. He had no idea that anyone would argue that the church in Rome was supreme over all other churches.

Apostolic Succession as an Argument Against the Roman Catholic Church

Tertullian speaks of churches which …

… although they do not derive their founder from apostles or apostolic men (since they are of much later date, for new churches are being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. (ibid. 32)

Churches such as these, he says, will submit other churches to a “test.” What is that test?

For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and disagreement, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man. This is true because just as the apostles would never have taught anything self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would never have taught doctrine different from the apostles. (ibid.)

So when we who are seeking to follow apostolic teaching ask the Roman Catholics to prove that they, too, are following what came from the mouth or pen of the apostles, we are simply following in the footsteps of the church fathers; something the Roman Catholic Church is quite unwilling to do.

Apostolic succession was meant to establish that a church held to apostolic teaching without changing it. The Roman Catholic Church uses apostolic succession to justify exactly the opposite. They want to have authority even when they are disobeying Christ and changing his teachings.

The churches which actually had apostolic succession, something no church has had for over 1700 years, would have condemned them as heretics.

Apostolic Succession, Tradition, and the Authority of the Church

Apostolic succession, tradition, and the authority of the Church all refute Catholicism. They do not defend it.

  • Apostolic succession is simply one argument used by early churches to establish that they had received and apostolic doctrine and maintained it unchanged.
  • Apostolic tradition is apostolic doctrine. Paul refers to his teachings as tradition several times (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15).
  • The Authority of the Church comes from being the pillar and support of the Truth. The Truth is that which is delivered to the churches by the apostles, who received it–and the authority to pass it on–from Christ, the Truth himself.

Protestants and the Fight for Truth

If this is so, then why has the Roman Catholic Church used these things–apostolic succession, tradition, and the authority of the Church–to argue for themselves and against Protestants.

It is because the Protestants are an easy target. Just as the Roman Catholics would never honestly look at the teachings of the fathers because those teachings condemn them for deviating from the tradition of the apostolic churches, so the Protestant churches refuse to submit to the apostolic churches–and thus to apostolic teaching.

There is now and always will be a fight for Truth. Truth sets men  free. Thus, Jude tells us that we must contend earnestly for the Truth in the form of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

With whom, however must we fight?

Is it not the devil? Is it not principalities, powers, and spiritual wickedness in heavenly places?

It is. And they would like nothing more that we fight against each other and for our traditions rather than against them and for the apostles’ traditions, which came from Christ.

Scripture vs. Apostolic Tradition

Where do we find the apostolic tradition? Isn’t it just in Scripture?

Are we really so blind? Millions of people study the Scriptures every day, and they disagree and divide with each other every day. Almost every heretical group gets their doctrines from the Scripture. I’ve almost never heard of a Jehovah’s Witness or WOW missionary (from “The Way International”) leaving their heresy because of being convinced from the Scriptures.

We know what the apostolic churches were like. We know the basic traditions the apostles delivered to those churches.

Loud voices cry out that we don’t. People say the early churches disagreed with one another. People say that they fell away and became legalistic.

They didn’t.

We may not like it, but they didn’t.

They were one, they were holy, they stood in persecution, they overcame the world, and they were so powerful that they brought the Roman empire to its knees even as it killed their bodies on a daily basis.

Among us you will find uneducated persons, craftsmen, and old women, who, if they are unable in words to prove the benefit of our doctrine, yet by their deeds exhibit the benefit arising from their persuasion of its truth. They do not rehearse speeches, but exhibit good works; when struck, they do not strike again; when robbed, they do not go to law; they give to those that ask of them, and love their neighbors as themselves. (A Plea for the Christians 11)

Ignore them at your peril.

The Scriptures, no matter how badly we want to make them “the sole rule of faith and practice,” continue to teach that the Church is the pillar and support of the truth and that God will guide the saints into truth only while they are completely united (1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Jn. 2:27),  not while they simply read the Bible.

Conclusion

I was looking for a nice, tidy ending to this rambling post that started on apostolic succession and the Roman church, but then turned on us who have clung to Sola Scriptura.

I have no such ending. I hope something in this blog has helped you.

Even more, I hope you will quit caring about yourself, your life, your savings, your college, your career, your car, your denomination, your loyalties, your alma mater, your family, your money, and anything else you’re prone to caring about, and you’ll begin caring about his kingdom.

When you do, you’ll look around and be horrified at how hard it is to find something that can rightly be said to be “the pillar and support of the truth.”

Then perhaps you’ll weep, cry out, repent, find those who are truly your brothers and sisters–not accepting their mere claims but examining their lives–and together ask God to reveal to you what he has only promised to reveal to those who are united and who fear him alone.

He is worth it all.

Posted in Bible, Church, History, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Revisiting the Ten Commandments of Catholicism

Posted on 05/11/2009 by Paul Pavao

A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog on the ten commandments. There I argued that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) split “You shall not covet” into two commands in order to draw attention away from the command they omit, which is “You shall not make any graven image.”

My son came to me last week to tell me that he looked in a Catholic Bible and the ten commandments there are the same as in a Protestant Bible.

This is true. The problem with the ten commandments by Roman Catholic (RCC) standards is not in their Bible translation. They have left the Bible unchanged. The problem is in the list they publish and teach to their followers.

Here is the description of the difference between the RCC ten commandments and the list made by Protestants according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The system of numeration found in Catholic Bibles, based on the Hebrew text, was made by St. Augustine … and was adopted by the Council of Trent. It is followed also by the German Lutherans … This arrangement makes the first commandment relate to false worship and to the worship of false gods as to a single subject and a single class of sins to be guarded against. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm)

In other words, they are claiming that the reason that they make “You shall have no other gods before me” and “You shall not make any graven images” into one command is because this is all one class of sin: false worship.

The reason they give for dividing “You shall not covet” into two commands is:

It seems, however, as logical to separate at the end as at the beginning, for while one single object is aimed at under worship, two specifically different sins are forbidden under covetousness; if adultery and theft belong to two distinct species of moral wrong, the same must be said of the desire to commit these evils. (ibid.)

The problem, as I pointed out, is the Biblical text.  The ten commandments are the ten commandments. The proper way to divide them into ten commands is the way God divided them through Moses. We cannot simply make up our own divisions.

Here is how Moses gave the last commandment to Israel:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. (Ex. 20:17)

Perhaps you will notice that the command not to covet your neighbor’s wife, which the RCC claims is a separate commandment, is in the middle of all the other things we are not to covet. The RCC makes the 9th commandment to be “You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.”

As you can see, the problem is that my neighbor’s goods are listed  both before and after my neighbor’s wife. It’s not very hard to figure out that Moses, and thus God through Moses, was not counting the command not to covet your neighbor’s goods and the command not to covet your neighbor’s wife as two separate commands. No theology degree is needed to see that this is completely illogical, no matter how logical the Catholic encyclopedia claims it to be.

In fact, it requires an advanced theological degree to become blind to something so obvious.

Roman Catholic Justification for Their Ten Commandments

The RCC argument for combining “You shall not have any gods before me” and “You shall not make any graven images” is not bad. They state:

This arrangement makes the First Commandment relate to false worship and to the worship of false gods as to a single subject. (ibid.)

That’s fine. The Jewish list of ten commandments does the same. They make the first command–which, strangely enough, is not a command at all–to be “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” They then combine the command to have no false gods and not to make any graven images into one command.

That’s strange, but at least it doesn’t require pulling a tenth commandment right out if the middle of the ninth.

Also, the Jews are opposed to making graven images and bowing down to them.

The Roman Catholics, however, are not. The Catholic Encyclopedia says this about the making of graven images:

… the prohibition [is] directed against the particular offense of idolatry alone. (ibid.)

Okay, let’s talk about that. What exactly is idolatry? Is it not God who gets to define this as well?

God says, “You shall not make for yourself any graven image … You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them” (Ex. 20:4-5).

Do Roman Catholics not bow down to graven images? I know that as a 6th grade student at a Catholic elementary school I was made to bow down and kiss the feet of a statue of Mary. Everyone knows that Catholics bow down in front of statues of saints and pray to those saints all over the world. It happens every day at Lourdes in France.

Do they really expect us to believe that it is just an accident of interpretation that their list of commandments says nothing about not making or bowing down to graven images?

Exodus 20 vs. Deuteronomy 5

I need to point out that while Exodus 20 says not to covet your neighbor’s house, then your neighbor’s wife, and then his other goods, Deuteronomy 5 lists the coveting of your neighbor’s wife first. Thus, if you wish to divide “You shall not covet” into two commands, Deuteronomy 5 does allow you to do so without destroying the text.

Um … does this matter?

The RCC claims to base their numbering of the ten commandments on a list given by Augustine in his work Questions on Exodus. I can’t seem to find a copy of that online, and The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers doesn’t contain it. However, I read enough references to it online to be confident they’re telling the truth.

Those references point out that Augustine was using Deuteronomy 5 to make his list, which is a very strange thing to do in a book entitled Questions on Exodus.

Oh, well. This blog is not about Augustine, who lived before the catholic churches were “Roman Catholic,” though he did not live before images of saints were being made and adored by almost-but-not-quite converted pagans.

(The pagan emperor Julian the Apostate, who reigned over three decades before Augustine was bishop, said that the saint worship of the Christians of his day was greater than the hero worship of the pagans before them. Even he scoffed at it and called it idolatry.)

Despite all this, it has been over 1600 years since Augustine wrote his book. No one considered during that time that his list doesn’t make sense if you read Exodus?

Someone needs to state the obvious. The making of statues fosters idolatry in general. In particular, the making of statues of saints not only can foster idolatry, but it already has created rampant idolatry throughout both the modern and historical Roman Catholic Church.

In fact, according to Exodus, bowing down to a statue is already idolatry.

Throughout the reign of the Pope as a civil authority (a time known as “the Dark Ages”) and until the 1960’s, the RCC discouraged the reading of the Bible. As long as this was so, they could simply publish a list that never mentions a prohibition against making and bowing down to graven images.

Over the last 40 years, however, the RCC has conceded and encouraged the reading of the Scriptures. Some of those RCC members need to petition their leaders to correct their dishonest rendering of the ten commandments.

Until it’s corrected, no matter what is written in the Catholic encyclopedia, their ten commandments are a loud testimony that the RCC has not only practiced idolatry, but allowed and promoted it.

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

Scoffing Scholars

Posted on 05/09/2009 by Paul Pavao

Don’t you hate it when someone announces that “all the scholars know” that Christianity isn’t true; they’re just scared to tell us?

I hate it, and it’s baloney.

A guy named Bart Ehrman has written a book called Jesus, Interrupted, claiming just that sort of thing. He tells us things like:

  • Only 8 of the 27 books of the NT were written by the authors to whom they’re attributed
  • Each Gospel portrays Jesus differently
  • Paul and Matthew are at odds on keeping the Law
  • The Nicene Creed and Trinity are not found in the Bible
  • Doctrines like the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, and heaven and hell are not based on teachings of Jesus

HarperCollins, the publisher, writes in their review:

As Ehrman skillfully demonstrates, [these points above] have been the standard and widespread views of critical scholars …

Nice.

Inch-Deep Scholars

Books like Ehrman’s are always directed against myths of modern Christianity. With this I concur. I speak out against myths of modern Christianity as well.

However, I replace those myths with truth, not unbelief!

For example, Paul and Matthew are at odds on keeping the Law; that is, if Paul’s letters teach what most Protestants say they teach. Big if.

Paul’s letters don’t teach what we Protestants say they teach.

A good scholar, when he notices that Paul’s letters and Matthew’s Gospels don’t match on the subject of Christians keeping the Law, will ask why. He will not simply point out that problem to the masses in an attempt to shipwreck their faith.

It’s not like it’s some mystery. It’s obvious to anyone who reads the writings of the early Church that we have completely lost their view of the Law. The Baptists don’t have it, the 7th Day Adventists don’t know about it, and the Pentecostals are completely unaware of it.

It’s gone, lost, buried and unheard of.

Unless, of course, you read the fathers, like scholars who write about the early Church are supposed to. That way, they know what they’re talking about.

You can find the early Church view of the Law, which powerfully reconciles Matthew and Paul in a way that is encouraging, uplifting, and even exciting, in Against Heresies, book IV, chapter 12 and forward. (I have also written a web page on it at http://www.christian-history.org/law-of-moses.html)

There’s no reason you should know that, but it’s inexcusable that an early Church scholar doesn’t know that.

A Quick Look at the Other Issues

1. Only 8 of the 27 books of the NT were written by the authors to whom they’re attributed

More accurately, we’re only confident about 8 of the 27 books. Those books were written 2,000 years ago. For most of those, all we have is some quote, decades later, that attributes the book to that person. It’s not terribly reliable information.

We already knew that. Before, however, you say that 19 books of the New Testament were written by plagiarists and frauds, you ought to have proof yourself!

That proof is difficult to find. Mostly the unbelievers and scoffers rely on textual criticism, a very unreliable source when you have so few pages of an author’s work, and when we know that various scribes would often have been used.

My response to the scoffers? The Scriptures transform lives and are involved in miraculous, powerful events every day. They have been for 2,000 years. They’re unstoppable and filled with power. That comes from God, and God doesn’t use frauds.

2. Each Gospel Portrays Christ Differently.

The review actually says “remarkably divergent portrayals.”

We’ve read them ourselves, Mr. Ehrman. Thanks, anyway.

This is crazy. The same scoffing, unbelieving scholars argue that Matthew, Mark, and Luke copied their information from one another. This rather limits how divergent they can be!

As for John, we already know how divergent John is. He wrote his Gospel at least four decades after the events. Irenaeus tells us it was six decades later. John was dealing with gnostics, and his Gospel was written partly to refute the gnostics.

It’s no wonder his Gospel presents a “remarkably divergent” view of Christ. It’s not a contradictory one, however. We Christians have read it ourselves, remember?

3. The Nicene Creed and Trinity are not found in the Bible.

This is like Paul and Matthew’s view of the Law. Our modern interpretation conflicts with the Bible on some minor points, but the Nicene Creed and Trinity doctrines themselves are found in the Bible. Much of the Nicene Creed is quoted word for word from the Bible.

Someone who knows history ought to know that the Nicene Creed’s basis is Matthew 28:19: ” … in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Paul, too, gives a similar formula to the Nicene Creed in 1 Cor. 8:6: “We believe in one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.”

If you ever have time, I give a thorough explanation of the history of the Council of Nicea and an early Church explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity at http://www.christian-history.org/nicea.html.

4. Traditional doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, and the notion of heaven and hell are not based on the teachings of the historical Jesus.

More inch-deep scholarship. The idea of heaven and hell are only hinted at in the Old Testament. That’s why the Sadducees–Jews who didn’t believe in an afterlife–could exist.

However, the Book of Enoch is full of the idea of heaven and hell, and Jesus most certainly agrees with Enoch. He even pulls directly from Enoch on the subject of the afterlife in the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:20ff).

If scoffing, unbelieving scholars were talking about Enoch, they’d tell you that Enoch greatly influenced Jesus. They’d be hoping to attack your faith. However, it’s inconvenient to mention Enoch when you’re trying to say that Jesus didn’t believe in heaven or hell.

I guess Ehrman also missed the story of the judgment of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25.

Conclusion

There are good, solid reasons for believing in Christ. The most notable reason is that if you do, he’ll unite you to God and change your life.

However, it is true that a lot of what we believe today is contradictory and false. It’s been 2,000 years, many unconverted people have been Christians and even clergy, and Christians have battled and fought with each other much of that time. We’ve damaged and wrecked “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

For those scoffing scholars, it’s like shark feed. Our errors draw them, and they circle the boat looking for those who fall overboard.

I’m for getting a better and truer grip on that faith so that we can have even more power with God.

I’m against throwing out the faith just because we’ve lost some of it and patched it up with myths.

Let’s not confuse these unbelieving scholars with honest academicians simply hunting for the truth. These are scoffers, enemies of God, on a crusade to wreck the faith. We need to rise up against them.

We’ll have a much easier time if we have at least a few of us who know something about the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Posted in Bible, History, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment