The Rest of the Old Old Story

One more of the questions that was asked of John Lennox today (June 18; I’m scheduling these posts 2 days apart) was who the Nephilim were.

Nephilim is the Hebrew word translated "giants" in Genesis 6:4. These Nephilim were the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

Weird passage. How do we interpret it?

John Lennox mentioned that the Nephilim are addressed in the New Testament, and then he quoted Jude 6:

And the angels, who did not guard their origins, but left their dwelling place, he has reserved in eternal chains under darkness for the judgment day.

I completely agree that Jude 6 is a reference to the Nephilim of Genesis 6.

I get wildly frustrated when I hear someone like John Lennox say that and then stop.

HELLO! JUDE IS REFERENCING THE BOOK OF ENOCH! HE’S SAYING WAY MORE THAN THAT THE "SONS OF GOD" ARE ANGELS AND THAT THE NEPHILIM ARE CHILDREN OF ANGELS!

Sorry for shouting, but let’s let all our brothers and sisters in on a secret that’s hidden away in the cellar.

There’s a Book of Enoch, and Jude quotes it!

Yes, that’s right. When Jude says Enoch prophesied about the judgment on ungodly men doing ungodly deeds in an ungodly way, he’s quoting the Book of Enoch. Depending on the version you read, the verse he’s quoting is either the last verse of chapter one (1:9) or the first verse of chapter two.

You know what else? The Book of Enoch is in the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

You know what else? It’s obvious that the Book of Enoch was read by many in the early church.

You know what’s even more important? The Book of Enoch is quoted as containing Enoch’s words in a letter that you consider inspired by God and infallible!

I, on the other hand, being a student of church history, know that I can question whether the Epistle of Jude is really inspired and ought to be in our New Testament. Most of the early churches did, and to this day the Nestorian congregations, now known as the Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East, who were excommunicated back in the 5th century over issues that Christians only pretend to understand, do not have Jude in their Bibles. In fact, they don’t have Revelation, either. Nor second or third John.

Shh. Don’t tell anyone. We have some things that we like to keep secret.

Okay, draw closer here so I can whisper.

Letting the Cat Out of the Bag

You know what’s really cool? The Book of Enoch has a neat story about why there are demons.

We think they’re fallen angels today. But, those angels that fell in Genesis 6 are kept in eternal chains awaiting judgment.

Oh, oh. I have to make this wait for the next post. I just realized that you might believe the modern myth that Satan caused one-third of the angels to rebel in the beginning.

That’s not true. Do you even know where that myth comes from?

I’ll explain all that next post. I don’t want to make this one too long.

I got an email the other day from a guy who’s been debating the Jehovah’s Witnesses about the deity of Christ.

Because modern Christians generally have never even heard about what the early churches believed about the Trinity (almost none, with the possible exception of the Eastern Orthodox Churches), they are very confused when they hear quotes from the church fathers of the second and third centuries. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have taken advantage of this, and they have "quote mined" the early church fathers, putting a spin on those unfamiliar quotes that has nothing to do with what they meant.

Of course, even putting a spin on their quotes isn’t quite enough, so the Jehovah’s Witnesses have done some misquoting as well.

I sent this person chapters 16 and 17 of my book on the Council of Nicea because it provides dozens of quotes, in context, with explanations that make sense of the Council of Nicea. You can’t read those chapters, as well as the story of the council earlier in the book, and not know how accurate they are.

He then wrote back asking specifically about Papias.

Here’s where I really want to show you how good it feels to know what you’re talking about rather than just guessing and hoping that what you believe is true.

Papias was an early Christian elder who had spent time with the elder John, the man who possibly wrote the Book of Revelation. (You may have noticed how different the Revelation of John is from the Gospel and letters.) Early Christian testimony says that there was very likely two Johns in Asia Minor at the end of the first century. One was the apostle, and the other was an elder he appointed.

Irenaeus mentions him several times, saying that he knew him. Eusebius, around the time of the Council of Nicea, includes Papias in his history, mentioning that he’d written a book in five parts. He quotes him several times as well.

That’s all we know about Papias.

So now you know what I’ve got to say about that. I’m a trustworthy secondary source, though you need to make sure you know something about me before you grant me the trust I just said I’m worthy of.

But I can do one better than that.

I sent this man who emailed me a link to the Christian Classic Ethereal Library. That link I just gave you will put you right on the Papias page, where the editors of The Ante-Nicene Fathers have collected all the references to Papias in one place.

Go there, and you can use the navbar on the left once you get there to see all ten fragments referring to Papias.

After that, if anyone brings up that obscure but important figure in early Christian history—such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses—you can say, "Papias is only mentioned by Irenaeus and Eusebius, and there’s just ten fragments available on him."

If you read those fragments, which will take five to ten minutes, then you will have a small taste of early Christian writing, and you’ll be able to add, "And, by the way, I’ve read what little we have on him, and he really doesn’t mention the Trinity specifically, but he sounds just like everyone else in his time. In fact, since Irenaeus claims to have met him and quotes him as an authority, I think it would be fair to say that we can find out what Papias believed by looking at what Irenaeus believed."

It’s nice to know what you’re talking about, and it’s not that hard to know.

Why should we be wondering about what THE APOSTLES’ CHURCHES believed?

Have you ever checked out what some church believed? Have you ever asked a friend, looked a church up on the internet, asked questions of the pastor, or read their statement of faith?

How much more important to do that with THE APOSTLES’ CHURCHES!

I mean, think about it. Christians fight over so many things, wouldn’t it be wonderful to know what the churches believed and practices that were started by the apostles? I think we all believe that they have more authority than anyone.

There’s a letter from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth (you have to use navbar on left when you get to that link to read the chapters) just 40 years after Paul wrote his letters. Have you ever wondered whether they repented at the teaching and writing of Paul?

Another thirty or forty years later, Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippians. What was going on with them?

In fact, Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna at least as early as A.D. 116, maybe earlier. While he may not have been an elder in Smyrna when the book of Revelation was written, he could well have been a member (depending on when it was written). Smyrna was one of only two churches that were not rebuked by Jesus in Revelation chapters two and three.

So what sort of advice is given by this leader of one of the best churches in Asia Minor at the turn of the first century? It would take about 20 minutes to find out, at most.

It has always amazed me that church leaders haven’t told their people they can know things like this.

The idea for this post, the framework for yesterday’s post, and a couple quotes today come from Contra Sola Scriptura by an Orthodox believer.

Tradition and the Ancient Churches

Most of us, when we hear a Roman Catholic use the word "tradition," think of pronouncements from the magisterium, the Roman Catholic hierarchy, or from the pope himself.

The Roman Catholics do believe that the church, or the pope himself when he speaks ex cathedra, can reveal new traditions. They don’t believe their new traditions violate Scripture, but they will defend their right to establish new tradition. They don’t require themselves to go all the way back to the apostles to verify that tradition.

What I personally didn’t realize until the last couple years is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which are the "catholic" churches of the world outside of Europe and America, do not see tradition that way.

The article I reference above is written by an Orthodox believer and he says:

The notion of an extra-scriptural revelation coequal to Scripture was rejected in the Montanist controversy. The early Church recognized the Apostolic Tradition in both written and oral forms as interdependent and binding on the Church. There is no historical evidence in the early Church of an extra-scriptural authority independent of Scripture.

Here this Orthodox believer argues, and insists he is speaking from the Orthodox point of view, that there is no tradition in addition to Scripture.

Instead, he insists, Scripture and tradition, which must come from the apostles and not from any other source, are one and the same source:

The theology of the early Church had a singular source: The apostolic preaching in oral and written form.

That Orthodox author, Robert Arakaki ("robertar"), then quotes Richard Muller to establish the real difference between the Protestant and Orthodox understanding of Scripture:

The Reformation did not invent the view that scripture is the prior norm of doctrine, the source of all necessary doctrines, sufficient in its teachings for salvation. … What the Reformation did in a new and forceful manner was to pose scripture against tradition and practices of the church and at the same time, define scripture as clear and certain in and of itself and therefore "self-interpreting." (Emphasis mine)

One last quote to emphasize the difference between Protestant and Orthodox:

A more useful approach would be to describe the theological method of the early Church as "Scripture in Tradition" and the Protestant method as "Scripture over Tradition." Orthodox Christians can accept the former but not the latter.

In other words, the Orthodox would say that you need tradition to interpret the Scriptures. You cannot depend on your interpretation of Scripture to overthrow tradition.

Tradition and the Protestants

In that last sentence I almost wrote, "You cannot depend on your interpretation of Scripture to overthrow well-established tradition."

The Orthodox, apparently, are simply claiming that Scripture ought to be interpreted in the light of what the apostles transmitted to the church orally as well. If the apostles wrote the New Testament and interpreted the old by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then it only makes sense that the traditions they passed to the churches orally would explain the Scriptures accurately.

I think even a Protestant could grant that.

What a Protestant could not grant is that the Orthodox Churches, two thousand years after the apostles preached, should be trusted when they tell us what those oral traditions of the apostles were.

We have to remember as we discuss the Protestant view of tradition that the Protestants were protesting against Roman Catholicism, not the Orthodox. The Roman Catholic Church that the Protestants left was a morass of superstition, ignorance, and idolatry. (There’s no better description of the problem than John Calvin’s letter to Cardinal Sadolet.) If we are to judge a prophet by his fruit—or a church by its fruit—as Jesus teaches in Matthew 7, then it is almost impossible for any religion to fail more miserably than late medieval Roman Catholicism.

Thus, it seems impossible that the Protestant Reformers could have drawn any other conclusion than that Scripture triumphs tradition. When it came to late medieval Roman Catholic traditions, not only did Scripture triumph that tradition, but so did common sense and human decency!

The tyrants in the magisterium of the late medieval Roman Catholic Church needed to be overthrown whether on a religious or a secular basis.

But now they are overthrown.

And now that they’re overthrown, it’s high time that we, the descendants of those who rightfully overthrew the power of the Roman Catholic magisterium, get back to truth.

The fact is, whether we are prepared to take the word of the Orthodox Churches on the matter of apostolic traditions or not, it is not that hard to find out what the apostles taught their churches on most major issues.

We Protestants have not done that … and for good reason.

It would overthrow most of what’s important to fundamental and evangelical Protestants.

Arakaki (who wrote the post linked at the top of the page) quotes Philip Schaff, one of my favorite historians, to establish that. Keep in mind as you read this that Schaff was a Calvinist, prone to that weird sort of arrogance I’ve only found in Calvinists. (It’s difficult to explain, but it makes it almost impossible for them to even notice when they’ve been completely contradicted by Scripture or bested in an argument.) Far form being a Roman Catholic, he was part of the most conservative strain of Protestantism.

On the other hand the theology of the fathers still less accords with the Protestant standard of orthodoxy. We seek in vain among them for the evangelical doctrines of the exclusive authority of the Scriptures, justification by faith alone, the universal priesthood of the laity; and we find instead as early as the second century a high estimate of ecclesiastical traditions, meritorious and extra-meritorious works, and strong sacerdotal, sacramentarian, ritualistic, and ascetic tendencies, which gradually matured in the Greek and Roman types of catholicity. (History of the Christian Church, vol. II, sec. 160)

Let me make a correction before I proceed. It is not true that the universal priesthood of the laity is not found in the early fathers. I know off the top of my head that it’s found repeatedly in Tertullian’s writings. What is true is that no one before Cyprian, a century and a half after the last apostle died, refers to a leader of the church as a priest.

Even the rest is true only if you interpret his words a certain way. What does "a high estimate of ecclesiastical traditions" mean? The second-century churches most certainly did not have the rigorous liturgy of later, larger churches. On the other hand, they did have set prayer times up to 7 times a day, they refused to kneel on Sundays in commemoration of the joy of the resurrection, and they loved the cross as a symbol, though they did not wear it hanging from their neck.

I say that because I don’t want to concede Schaff’s wording. I don’t think it’s accurate. But that the theology of the fathers doesn’t jive with the important doctrines of Protestantism? There’s no doubt that’s true.

The question is, do we care? Are we willing to find out what the apostles taught, and to adjust our Bible interpretations accordingly?

Therefore, brothers, stand fast and hold to the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or our letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)

I read part of an article on sola scriptura today, and I thought it’s high time I addressed the subject here. This isn’t a response to that article. The article just provides an easy outline to address.

Sola scriptura, by the way, is the teaching that the Bible is the sole rule for faith and practice. There is no authoritative source of truth outside the Bible.

Literally, of course, it means "Scripture only."

The article reviews a book called The Shape of Sola Scriptura. The book makes three claims:

• The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is consistent with the teachings of the early church fathers.
• The New Testament teaches sola scriptura.
• Sola scriptura is capable of providing church unity.

So let’s address these one by one:

The Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Is Consistent with the Teachings of the Early Church Fathers

The only early church fathers I would pay any attention to are those before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. After that, doctrine could be decreed. The churches could get together and change whatever they want, so I wouldn’t lean on any church father after Nicea.

Nonetheless, even the ones before Nicea constitute 4 or 5 times the amount of information that’s in the entire Bible. That’s hard to sift through, and easy to quote mine. (To quote mine is to quote out of context, making the author appear to say something contrary to what he really meant.)

To reduce the amount of material we have to sift through, let’s tie this one to the third one. Did the pre-nicene fathers believe that sola scriptura could produce church unity?

Irenaeus, around A.D. 185, said the following about how church unity was maintained. (The early churches didn’t have to produce unity; they already had it.)

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [Irenaeus here gives a statement of faith longer than but similar to the Nicene Creed.] … The Church, having received this preaching and this faith … carefully preserves it. … For although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the meaning of the tradition is one and the same. (Against Heresies I:10:1-2)

Tertullian, 20 years later, says something very similar.

[The apostles] founded churches in every city from which all other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith and the seeds of doctrine and are every day deriving them. (Prescription Against Heretics 20)

He adds:

Is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same error? … When 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)

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian attribute the unity of the church to tradition, not to Scripture.

Mind you, they are not talking about a tradition issued from a hierarchy to all the churches. They are talking about a tradition given by Jesus Christ to the apostles, who then gave it to the churches. Holding to that tradition is what ensured the unity of the churches. There was no freedom to change the tradition, and any church that did change the tradition would have fallen out of sorts with all the other churches (even if that church was Rome).

I think that’s clear enough from the quotes I just gave you.

Thus, I think we can already say that the early church fathers did not teach sola scriptura, nor did they believe the doctrine capable of producing church unity. They already had unity, and that unity was based on a common tradition received from the apostles … say they.

There’s more to say about the Scriptures and tradition, but we will save that for tomorrow.

Can sola scriptura Produce Church Unity?

We have already seen that the pre-nicene churches (those from apostolic times up to A.D. 325) attributed their unity, preserved since the time of the apostles, to a common, handed-down tradition.

But in the modern age, where unity is long gone, is sola scriptura capable of producing church unity?

Obviously not.

There are many millions of Christians in denominations that hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura. They are famous for division. If sola scriptura was supposed to produce unity, it’s failing miserably.

Does the New Testament Teach Sola Scriptura?

If it does, I don’t know where.

Here, however, are some verses that teach against sola scriptura:

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

I have written these things concerning those who are trying to seduce you. The anointing which you have received from him remains in you, and you do not need any man to teach you. That same anointing teaches you about everything, and it is true and not a lie. Just as it has taught you, you shall remain in him. (1 Jn. 2:26-27)

[Christ] gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the full equipping of the saints to do the work of ministry and to build up the body of Christ. [This they will do] until we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God … so that we are no longer children, tossed here and there and blown around by every wind of teaching, by the trickery of men, and by their skillful deceit. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we may grow up into him in all things. (Eph. 4:11-15)

Thus, we need the church as the pillar and support of the truth. We need the anointing to teach us together so that we are not seduced. And, finally, we need God-appointed leaders to equip us to serve and build up the church so that we are not blown around by every wind of doctrine.

The Scriptures support every one of these actions. The Scriptures are profitable for doctrine. They are profitable for correction and instruction in righteousness. We need them so that we may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

But one man reading them by himself is not enough, and that is what sola scriptura teaches.

Even a group of men, depending only on Scripture, will almost always end up led astray, not in unity, disagreeing with everyone around them. How do I know that? Because it happens all the time! Look around!

Here’s what the Scriptures have to say about what will happen if all you have is yourself, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible:

Exhort/encourage one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb. 3:13)

Yes, what you can expect if it’s just you, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible is that you will be deceived by the hardness of your own heart. We need the exhortation of our brothers!

As Proverbs says:

He who separates himself seeks his own desire. He quarrels against all sound wisdom. (Prov. 18:1, NASB)

Hmm …

Tomorrow

Tomorrow we’ll talk about Scripture and tradition and how the early churches believed they mixed, and we’ll also look at the Roman Catholic and Orthodox view of tradition. There’s a couple interesting statements in that article I referenced at the top of the post.

Today I got an email from someone that left no return address. It was about gnosticism, a deviation from early Christianity that is enjoying a bit of a revival today, but not in its original form. (Click the link to read more about gnosticism in a new window.) Gnosticism molded itself to the intellectual/spiritual atmosphere of the Roman empire, and it has molded itself to the same atmosphere in America today.

As a result, those who are trying to revive gnosticism pass themselves off as enlightened and open-minded.

But they’re not enlightened or open-minded. They’re just wrong.

There are some things that are just true. History is not what you make it to be. History is what it is, and you are either learning it accurately or you’re fooling yourself.

This person wrote me and said:

If you base your information about gnosticism from a book by a person who called them heretics your information is going to be wrong.

Is that true?

That sounds plausible, maybe even apparently true, but on what basis should it be true? If I learn about a religion, and I decide that religion is wrong, then that means everything I learned about it is false? How is that logical?

When I was a young Christian, I loved reading “cult” books. I especially like Walter Martin, and he especially liked to take apart Jehovah’s Witness and Mormon doctrine. He most definitely called them heretics.

As a result, I heard Jehovah’s Witnesses, whom I talked to somewhat regularly, warn me that Walter Martin’s portrayal of them was inaccurate.

But you know what I found? The more I talked to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, the more I saw that Walter Martin was right on the money about them. He had done his homework. Everything he told me panned out.

Now, it’s true that his speech was inflammatory. It’s true that he put emphasis on the more embarrassing things, while both groups tended to avoid talking about those things.

That’s normal, but it doesn’t make what he said inaccurate.

Most of what I learned about gnosticism was learned from Irenaeus’ very long book, Against Heresies, written around A.D. 185. I’ve read it twice, and I’ve referred to it often, so I’m very familiar with it.

Later, though, I got my hands on copies of gnostic writings. (Well, not my hands actually because I found them all on the internet.) The Gospel of Mary Magdalene and The Apocryphon of John are a couple I read.

Those both jived completely with what Irenaeus said about gnosticism. And although Irenaeus spent most of his time on the Valentinians, the group with which he was most familiar, he was careful to say that gnostic teachers were always inventing new doctrines, so what he was saying wouldn’t apply in every detail to all gnostic groups.

Every one of them generates something new, day by day, according to his ability, for no one is deemed "perfect," who does not develop among them some mighty fictions. (Against Heresies I:18:1)

The point is to find out what is true. I took the time to verify that what Irenaeus said is true.

The real point in writing him off as a heretic hunter is to avoid what’s true. The person who wrote me accuses me of being wrong because I lean on Irenaeus, but my concern is truth, so I have done the work to have a solid basis for what I say. Supporters of gnosticism write Irenaeus off because they don’t like what he says, not because they’ve taken the time to determine whether it’s accurate.

When it comes to history and religion, what’s true remains true no matter what you wish were true.

I’ve been reading Love Wins by Rob Bell. I’m 89% done (percentage courtesy of Kindle).

***I wrote this a week ago; I’m finished with the book now.***

Originally I was not going to blog about it. After all, a thousand blogs have already covered his book. What could I possibly add?

Then I reached 89% of the way through the book.

I definitely have something to add.

Universal Salvation

First, a couple things need to be stated clearly. Rob Bell most definitely teaches universal salvation in the book. He doesn’t hint at it. He doesn’t suggest it might be true. He doesn’t ask questions only to get us thinking about it. He clearly and forcefully argues for universal salvation, providing one of the most comprehensive list of verses on the subject I’ve ever seen.

I read a blog post by Greg Boyd back when he was one of the only people who had read the book. Boyd suggests that Rob Bell is just speaking generally and asking questions. That’s very sweet of Mr. Boyd, but I don’t believe it’s accurate.

It’s true enough that when Rob Bell gets down to the very heart of the question—when he directly confronts the issue of universal salvation—he does indeed refuse to answer it. He says we can be free to speculate. But look at what he says along the way.

Chapter 4 of Love Wins is entitled “Does God Get What God Wants?” In that chapter Rob Bell points out that God wants all people to be saved, referencing the statement to that effect in 1 Tim. 2. 2 Pet. 3:9 says the same thing.

He makes it clear what the central point of the chapter is:

Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants? Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end? (ch. 4; emphasis his; I have no page numbers since I’m reading this on Kindle)

A little later he adds:

This insistence that God will be united and reconciled with all people is a theme the writers and prophets return to again and again. They are very specific … constantly affirming the simple fact that God does not fail.

Then:

At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God.

Finally, at the end of the chapter, when he dodges the question of universal salvation, he dodges it by saying the following:

How could someone choose another way with a universe of love and joy and peace right in front of them—all of it theirs if they would simply leave behind the old ways and receive the new life of the new city in the new world? The answer to how is “Yes.”

Bell goes on to explain that we see people “choose to live in their own hells all the time.”

Thus, the question is left open, but look at how it is left open! It is left open by the statement that anyone can be saved, even in the afterlife, because God wants everyone to be saved. They will only not be saved if they continue to reject the love of God eternally.

Saying What You Mean

I don’t have a problem with questioning tradition until it’s proven to be apostolic. I do it myself regularly. But I believe one should honestly admit when he’s purposely disagreeing with the status quo.

When people ask if Rob Bell is adopting a position of universal salvation, they are asking if he is rejecting the common teaching that some—and probably most—people will go to hell eternally, being tormented by God.

Bell not only rejects that teaching, he says that teaching creates a God that is horrific and that no one could possibly want to believe in. He spends a lot of chapter 5 explaining why.

Again, I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. In fact, I agree that eternal torture never seems just. But why deny it when asked about it?

And I’ve seen Rob Bell being interviewed about his book. He does not get to the point.

Do I Agree With Love Wins?

I’ve already said that I agree that no one can really believe that it’s just to torture a person eternally for sins committed during a short time on earth.

Even worse, most fundamentalists believe that God will torture a person eternally if they commit even one sin during their lifetime. In other words, we’re supposed to believe that God is a just judge when he torments a person in flames—eternally—for cheating on a test in 5th grade.

Sorry. That’s nonsense.

If that’s Scriptural, then I have to admit that I’m prepared to reject the Scriptures. That’s not justice. Only a monster would do such a thing, and I refuse to believe that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who delivered me at the name of Jesus, is a monster.

I don’t believe that going to hell for one sin is even remotely Scriptural, however. That teaching is less than a thousand years old, and the teaching it came from, that we’re all guilty because Adam sinned, didn’t show up until at least three centuries after Christ. We inherited death from Adam, a death we are already living in (Eph. 2:1-3), but we did not inherit a guilt for Adam’s sin for which we will have to face judgment on the last day (or immediately after death).

Scripture teaches that even those who don’t know about Christ can be “excused” by living according to their conscience (Rom. 2:14-15). Scripture also teaches that God will forget all the sins that a person has committed if they turn from their sins to a righteous life. No sacrifice is mentioned as necessary for this (Ezek. 18:21-22). Even further, King David says that God doesn’t want sacrifice to forgive sins; he wants a contrite heart (Ps. 51:16-17).

Thus, it’s clear that Scripture does not teach that people go to hell for committing one sin. In fact, people won’t go to hell even for many sins if they turn from their wickedness and do righteousness. Their wickedness will be forgotten, says the Scripture, and because of the righteousness which they have done they will live (Ezek. 18:21-22).

Rob Bell makes some beautiful, powerful points in Love Wins. I highly recommend reading it … unless you haven’t read the New Testament a few times. If you haven’t, then you should read the writings of the apostles first. Read Rob Bell later.

Rob Bell is a great, great teacher, but it is the apostles to whom Jesus committed the faith.

And Rob Bell leaves some important parts of it out.

Vengeance and Wrath

Jesus, according to the apostles, really will take vengeance on those who reject the Gospel.

The Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God and that do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. (2 Thess. 1:7-8)

Admittedly, Bell takes the time to argue that the word “everlasting” there shouldn’t be everlasting. Okay, fine. Let’s give him that.

Nonetheless, nothing about Love Wins acknowledges the God who punishes with “age-lasting” destruction and takes vengeance.

Nor do I think he’s terribly honest about the history of universalism in the church.

Errors in Love Wins

I’ve read all the writings of the 2nd century church. The claim that those who deny an eternal hell have been “at the center” since the first church is just not true. No one in the 2nd century church suggests such a thing.

Rob Bell references Origen and Clement of Alexandria as sources for such a teaching. There is no doubt that Origen taught universal salvation. Clement of Alexandria was one of his teachers, so it’s not a stretch to think that Clement agreed with him, but I don’t think it’s true, and Bell gives no reference and no quote for his claim.

Origen, by the way, belongs to the third century, and Clement began teaching around A.D. 190, almost at the end of the second century.

Either way, two men do not constitute “at the center,” especially when we remember that one taught the other. They were both from Alexandria, though Origen moved to Caesarea over disagreements with the bishop (probably jealousies by the bishop). Alexandria was a center of learning, the kind of place from which unusual speculation is likely to arise.

Descriptions of the Faith Vs. Teachings

Not only that, both Origen and Clement are teachers, and their writings are teachings.

There’s nothing wrong with that, but if you want to find what is “in the center” of Christian teaching in the early churches, you should read descriptions of the faith, not teachings and arguments.

Justin Martyr, for example, writes a description of what Christians believe to the emperor in an effort to have persecution dispelled. He is not trying to argue a position or think through a teaching. He is trying to honestly describe Christians and Christianity. He writes:

Among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. He will be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and will be punished for endless duration. (First Apology 28)

Thirty years later, Irenaeus wrote a defense of the Christian faith directed against gnosticism. In it he describes “this preaching and this faith,” which the church “although scattered throughout the whole world … carefully preserves … as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart” (Against Heresies I:10:2). Only a few sentences are given to describe this faith that the church held through the whole world as though she had one on the same heart, but it includes this:

… just judgment towards all, so that he may send … the ungodly, unrighteous, wicked, and profane among men into everlasting fire, but may … confer immortality on the righteous, holy, and those who have kept his commandments. (ibid. I:10:1)

Punishment of “endless duration” is what you find being taught by the early Christians “as though they have but one soul.” These things represent what was “at the center” of the first churches. Speculation by two men from Alexandria don’t change that.

Really Great Things in Love Wins

Rob Bell has some really great teachings in Love Wins.

For example, I think his description of the story of the Prodigal Son is by far the best I’ve ever heard. He explains that there are several stories in this one story. Each son has a story about himself, and the father has a story about both sons.

The father’s story is different than the sons’ stories, and believing the father’s stories about themselves can be life-changing.

The prodigal son himself believes that he is unworthy to be the father’s son. The father explains that nothing of the sort is true. The brother believes that he has slaved for years for nothing. The father explains that he was not a slave and that everything that belonged to the father belonged also to the sons.

Bell also provides a pretty decent description of the atonement in Love Wins. He explains that there are many descriptions of the atonement, and that we should embrace all of them and use the ones that are most relevant in explaining the atonement.

That portion will give you a bigger–and more Scriptural–picture of the atonement than you’ve ever had before. Simply excellent.

It’s not what Bell says to which I object. It’s what he doesn’t say–what he leaves out. That I’ve explained above in the errors section.

It seemed to me that these things were worth mentioning. My conclusion? It is the same as what I said above.

Read Love Wins, but make sure you’ve read the apostles repeatedly first.

I read a very interesting paragraph in a blog by Lisa Miller, former religion editor of Newsweek.

“When Bible study can be done on Facebook as easily as in the church basement, and a favorite preacher can teach lessons via podcast, the necessity of physically gathering each week in the same place with the same people turns remote.” (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/15/my-take-how-technology-could-bring-down-the-church/)

Only someone with a very modern view of the church could make such a statement. Not that the stament is inaccurate! If the church is what is commonly portrayed, at least in North America, then Ms. Miller’s assessment is spot on. If church is nothing more than a meeting you attend on Sundays–and perhaps on Wednesdays as well–then why bother? Ms. Miller specifically mentioned Rob Bell as one of those “favorite preachers.” Rob’s preaching is much more interesting and inspiring than the sermons in 99% of the churches out there. And if you sing at home, you can play whatever songs are your favorites, sung by professionals, on whatever sound system you have and at whatever volume you prefer.

But put that in context of the early churches:

—————
Acts 2:42: And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayers … and all the believers were together and had all things in common … and continuing daily in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meals together with gladness and unity of heart.
—————

You can’t replace that with an internet sermon!

Or how about this one from a century later:

————-
We who once valued above all else the acquisition of wealth and possessions now bring what we have into a common stock and share with everyone in need. We who hated and destroyed one another and, on account of of different customs, would not share the same fire with men of a different tribe now, since the coming of Christ, live familiarly with them. (Justin Martyr, First Apology 14)
————-

You can replace a weekly meeting with an exciting, excellent teaching by podcast. You can even, in a sense, replace corporate worship by watching it on a TV or computer screen.

But the church is not a weekly meeting!

The Scriptures call the church the household of God (1 Tim. 3:15). We say the same thing today, calling the church the family of God and referring to each other as brothers and sisters, but it must have some invisible, spiritual, or symbolic meaning for us because the majority of us can replace church with something we watch on a screen and listen to with headphones!

Obviously, the apostolic churches took the Holy Spirit’s words differently than we take them. They actually “lived familiarly” with one another and brought their extra money together to take care of “everyone” in need. They broke bread from house to house and ate their meals together with gladness.

That’s the sort of thing a family would do.

Wouldn’t you love to be in a family whose every member devoted their lives to kindness and love and in which every person was empowered by the Holy Spirit to achieve some measure of success living in love and service to others? Wouldn’t you love to be in a family that shared their lives and took care of each other with “singleness of heart,” so that you could count on changing the world together because you were devoted to ministry together?

That is what is supposed to be offered in every church.

It may seem hopeless to see that happen, but the first step is simple.

You have to give up your devotion to an organization that offers meetings because the church isn’t an organization anyway. (Remember? We’ve all heard that said, right?) Then you have to change your devotion to people.

And not to any people! One of the problems in churches today is that no distinction is made between those who are sold out to the will of Jesus Christ and those who are not. The sons of God cannot and should not be unequally yoked with the sons of Belial. The context of that verse is not marriage, though that’s the only context in which modern believers ever mention “unequally yoked.”

You need to devote yourself to others who love God like you do. No, not to others who have the same doctrine on the hundreds of non-essentials we normally divide over. It’s unity of Spirit that comes first, and the **result** of that unity of Spirit will be unity of faith (Eph. 4:3,13).

It doesn’t matter where they go on Sunday morning. Chances are that you can’t see them Monday or Tuesday morning, either, because they have a job that is different than yours. I know from experience that it’s not that hard to find time outside of church and work to fellowship with those who work somewhere else than you do.

There’s a lot of advice I’m tempted to give here, but it’s a temptation. We have to get a vision for what the church should be, know that it’s God’s vision as well, then trust God and make real efforts–efforts we can feel good about before God–to see the will of God happen.

At that point, it’s God who’s got to help you go forward. If the Lord’s not building the house or watching the city, then you’re laboring in vain. It’s Jesus we’re following, and it’s his Spirit that has the power to make the will of God happen.

I have read dozens of articles and sections of books that talk about the pagan origins of Easter.

What about the Christian origins?

From the very earliest times, the apostles’ churches celebrated the Passover each year. We know that there was a dispute over the date on which to celebrate Passover in 160 and again in 190 (dates estimated based on the reign of the Roman bishops involved). The first was resolved by the intervention of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and the second resolved by the intervention of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in what is now France.

During the second dispute, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus wrote:

Philip, one of the twelve apostles … John, who … reclined upon the bosom of the Lord … And Polycarp of Smyrna, who was a bishop and a martyr. All of these observed the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the Gospel. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History V:24)

Polycrates and the bishop of Rome (Victor) were arguing whether to celebrate Passover on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan or to celebrate it on the Sunday nearest Nisan 14. Polycrates argues that it was the habit of Philip, John, and Polycarp to celebrate Nisan 14. Victor, bishop of Rome, argued that Paul and Peter had taught them to always observe Passover on a Sunday.

The point is that Passover was observed all over the Christian world by the middle to late second century, whichever day it was celebrated on. Further, the Christians of the latter half of the second century claimed that they had received this practice from the apostles.

I have a question.

Does anyone care?

Why don’t we ever hear any sermons about the fact that Easter descended from the celebration of Passover? Why aren’t we told that Christians everywhere celebrated Passover each year?

The huge majority of us follow in the footsteps of the early churches, and we don’t keep a weekly Sabbath; at least not one on which we physically rest. The early churches believed that Jesus had expanded the Law, bringing it to a spiritual fullness, and thus they kept a daily, spiritual Sabbath.

We follow their footsteps in rejecting a physical, weekly Sabbath, but we do not follow their footsteps in recognizing Passover. Instead, we’ve applied some pagan term to the day.

I’m not even objecting to the pagan term. I’m objecting to the fact that we don’t tell Christians what was before the pagan term. The apostles’ churches celebrated Passover each year!

Celebrating Passover

Not much is said about the way the early churches celebrated Passover. I see no indication that they had a Seder meal each year.

A new deliverance was wrought when Christ, our new Passover lamb, was sacrificed for us. Jesus delivered us from a spiritual Egypt, and he delivered us from a much more dangerous spiritual death and Angel of Death.

The Passover meal in fleshly Israel was a lamb that had lived among the family. The Passover meal in spiritual Israel is God’s Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world, that also came and lived among us. We eat his body, and we drink his blood.

Our Passover food is the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper. It is true meat and true drink.

As far as I can tell, this is the only Passover meal that the Christians of the apostolic era celebrated. I can’t be certain of that because so little is said, but the whole feel of the early church writings makes me confident that they weren’t doing a Jewish Seder meal. They were eating the Lord’s Supper because Jesus is our Passover.

Baptism on Passover

It eventually became a habit to be baptized on Passover.

In the Book of Acts, all baptisms are immediate. The Philippian jailer was even baptized in the middle of the night.

The time from belief to baptism began expanding very quickly, however. The Didache, a late first or early second century document, speaks of fasting for one or two days prior to baptism. Later we read about it being a week. Finally, it’s Tertullian, around A.D. 210, who first discusses baptism happening on Passover, apparently only once each year.

That’s not surprising. False conversions had been a problem from the earliest times. Simon the Magician in Acts 8 is an excellent example. Asking a person to fast for two days before being baptized is an effective method for weeding out those who are just putting on a show!

It wasn’t effective enough, however, and it became normal in the third century for converts to be put in "catechism" classes to learn basic doctrine for a long period. Then they would be baptized when Passover rolled around.

I’ve often wondered if this is where the fast—what we call Lent—prior to Passover came from. When Justin Martyr mentions having a convert fast prior to baptism, he mentions that "we pray and fast with him" (First Apology 61). So were Christians fasting prior to Passover because of the baptisms that were coming?

Whether that’s the source or not, Christians fasted anywhere from one or two days to forty days prior to Passover. At the Council of Nicea in 325, this was standardized to forty days for all the churches, and our modern forty-day lent was born.

Fasting in the early churches wasn’t always completely doing without food. Sometimes it was limiting food intake to just bread and water, and any money saved was given to the poor. Other Christians might fast all day long, but then eat after the sun went down (much as the Muslims practice Ramadan).

Conclusion

That’s our heritage. I thought you might want to know. You don’t have to call it "Resurrection Day," though you can if you want. You can use the term the apostles’ churches used: Passover.

This is a shameless, self-promotion of my ebook. It’s a reprint of my Christian History Newsletter.

I’m allowing myself to do both because the general reaction to the ebook—It’s a full-fledged 440-page book on the Council of Nicea—has been surprise that it’s so interesting. This blog explains why they’re surprised, and why we shouldn’t be.

Ready?

The Council of Nicea transformed the faith to which you and I belong. But who knows?

Christian history doesn’t arouse images of excitement and urgency. When I write “the Council of Nicea,” almost no one thinks, “This will be fun!”

That’s not the fault of the story. The Council of Nicea could easily be a Hollywood movie. Intrigue, murder, vying for power, sinister plots, religious hypocrisy, but also some gallant, earnest, and courageous men and women.

The motto of Christian History for Everyman has always been that we’re rescuing our heritage and stories from the boring halls of academia. Think about it. What is history? Isn’t it the collection of stories and facts that we think are the most interesting, exciting, and memorable of all time?

How could that be boring?

It’s a saying that truth is stranger than fiction. We all can think of instances where we’ve said, “That’s too far out to be made up.”

Hollywood gives us, mostly, the made-up stuff.

Exciting as that is, real history’s BETTER!

In the Beginning Was the Logos

I’m releasing a book today (an ebook; the printed version will be available around May 15). Only friends have read it so far, and the universal reaction is:

• Wow. I never dreamed this would be interesting!

Of course it’s interesting!!!

You have to work to make the Council of Nicea boring. You have to work even harder to make the Council of Nicea boring for Christians.

• It affects your faith!
• This is your heritage!
• It’s full of fascinating twists and turns and the most incredible scheming!

Arius, the man who started all the hoopla, was excommunicated by a council of over 100 bishops.

Why didn’t that simply resolve the issue?

The answer is that a distant relative of the emperor used his political influence to move himself from the insignificant town of Berytus to the residence of the emperor in Nicomedia. His name was Eusebius, and he hated the bishop of Alexandria–the very man who had led the excommunication of Arius.

Further, both Arius and Eusebius had been taught by an elder from Antioch named Lucian. Lucian had been out of communion with the church of Antioch for at least 16 years and possibly 35. Later, though, he’d returned, was martyred, and today he’s “Saint” Lucian, whose feast day is celebrated every year on January 7.

Eusebius gave Arius just the leg up he needed, and the rest, as they say is history.

But what history!

In their efforts to have the bishop of Alexandria framed for some crime and removed, Eusebius managed to get hold of a severed human hand. He claimed that the bishop of Alexandria had tortured a bishop who agreed with Arius, then cut off his hand to use in magic rites.

Unfortunately, the supposedly tortured elder, named Arsenius, couldn’t contain his curiosity. So he turned up in a tavern not far from the court.

He was spotted.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

The stories are incredible. The twists, delightful. The information, crucial.

The Bishop of Alexandria

I mentioned the bishop of Alexandria above. I actually mentioned two of them, but I didn’t tell you because it seemed a distraction. Eusebius hated both of them.

One excommunicated Arius and battled Eusebius at the Council of Nicea. The other was Nicea’s greatest champion afterward.

How did that first bishop meet the second?

That story, too, is fascinating, but I’m not telling it to you here.

The Book

If you’re getting this newsletter, then you’ve been to Christian-history.org, and you liked something enough to sign up for my newsletter. I haven’t had time to do the newsletter since December because I’ve been writing this book, which was research-intensive, to say the least.

Hopefully, if you’ve read much of my site at all, you know the incredible effort I put into every page. I don’t gloss over things. I research them, and I tell you where the stories came from. Whenever possible, I tell you stories from the people who were there.

In the Beginning Was the Logos is no different.

The Council of Nicea made some decisions. Their creed is recited in millions of churches every week to this day.

I want to show you that almost every church that recites it pays very little attention to what it says.

Two Men Named Eusebius

There was another man named Eusebius at the Council of Nicea. He was a historian, and he was having some trouble with both sides of the debate.

So when the creed was formed, Eusebius the historian asked some questions. He asked lots of questions. Then he wrote a letter.

• “We have all concurred, but not without due examination.”
• “On justifiable grounds we resisted to the last moment”
• “[We] received them without dispute when, on mature deliberation … they appeared to agree”

He asked the meaning of every controversial expression in the creed. Then he wrote to his church and told them what the council itself said those words meant.

Does anyone care? Why would we forget such things?

They brawled in bars over these words, and they beat each other–quite literally to death–in the streets over these things.

Why? What was so important?

What can we learn from this most momentous event in the history of the church?

I believe that this is the easiest to understand, the easiest to verify, the most interesting, and the most believable book answering those questions that exists.

What I’m hoping is that this email and what you’ve seen on my site makes you believe me enough to find out. I’ve convinced the friends who know and trust me. They expressed genuine surprise as well as some joy that this history can belong to them as well. But can I convince you?

It’s an ebook right now. It will also be in print in about a month. You can buy it now at:

http://www.christian-history.org/ibwl-ch-news

That link will take you straight to Christian History for Everyman’s page about the book.

For this blog and for the Christian History Newsletter, I’m offering half price, at $9.95, until April 15. (This book is over 400 pages. It’s a full treatment of the subject, and it’s quick-paced all the way through.) I’ll put the price back to $19.95 the next day and advertise it on Christian History for Everyman as well. For now, it’s just those who read this blog and get my newsletter that can get the book!

You will never have felt so close to history before, and you will never have been more confident that you know what, where, who, and why about any other event of history. This event matters to all of us.

I posted earlier today, too, with more content .

If you read my blog, you probably know that I’ve been working on a book about the Council of Nicea. My writing part is done. All I’m doing now is formatting.

I’m having trouble picking a title, so this blog post is for two reasons:

• You can read four chapters of the book for free. You can find the links at the Council of Nicea page at Christian History for Everyman.
• After you’ve read those, I’m taking title suggestions! If I use yours, I’ll give a free, signed copy of the book (for whatever that’s worth) and a $25 gift certificate to amazon.com.

For the record, I’ve tried three titles so far:

• Setting It Straight: An Honest Man’s Look at the Council of Nicea
• Going the Wrong Way: An Honest Man’s Look at the Council of Nicea
• In the Beginning Was the Logos: The Council of Nicea for Everyman

I’m not very good at title creating. Any help or feedback is really appreciated.