One of the posts I want to get to today or tomorrow is on the two stages of salvation. There’s the first one, deliverance from the world, and the second stage, facing the judgment and entering the kingdom.

Very different things are said about those two stages in Scripture, especially in Paul, who was careful to distinguish the two.

However, that entails talking about works and their role in our salvation, and that’s not a good thing to do without defining works.

I’ve been guilty of talking about works without defining them, but I’m not going to do so this time.

What Are Good Works

The easiest place to begin is in Matthew 25:31-46.

When we talk about good works, whose definition should we use?

I suggest using God’s definition because he is the one who is going to judge our works (Rom 2:5-7; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Pet. 1:17; etc.).

Jesus describes the judgment in Matthew 25.

It appears, from Matthew 25:31-46, that the works Jesus is concerned about involve helping people: feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and clothing the naked.

What About All the Other Stuff?

Paul lists a lot of bad works in Gal. 5:19-21, and he says the practicing of those works will keep us out of the kingdom of heaven.

How does that mesh with what Jesus described in Matt. 25?

I always prefer to adopt a view that lets all the Scripture be true, not one that chooses one verse over another.

I think the Scriptures assume that the sheep of Matt. 25 don’t practice the sins of Gal. 5:19-21. In almost every case, people who practice drunkenness, envy, jealousy, outbursts of wrath, adultery, etc. are not people who open their homes to the hungry, thirsty, sick, and imprisoned.

Let’s keep this simple. Rather than debating the status of those who feed the hungry and take in the homeless, yet who practice drunkenness, anger, and sexual immorality at the same time, let’s do some thing different. Let’s leave that judgment to God.

For ourselves, though, let’s acknowledge that it’s probably not a good idea to leave yourself in that position. The Scriptures say, repeatedly as a matter of fact, that if you practice drunkenness, lying, greed, and sexual immorality, you won’t inherit God’s kingdom.

So let’s not do those things.

The Mercy of God

Somehow, once we adopted Thomas Aquinas’ 13th century teaching that Jesus’ died for the penalty of our sins rather than for our sins, we also began to believe that it is just for God to torment people eternally for just one sin.

It’s not true.

• We were already dead in our sins. We needed someone to give us life, not pay a penalty we’re currently paying.
• It’s not just to torture people eternally for just one sin (and thus God would never do that).
• What makes us sinners is not one sin, but the fact that the vast majority of humans are basically radically selfish all the time (Rom. 3:10-23).
• God has always been willing to forgive sin.

Oh, how we underestimate the mercy of God!

Even before Jesus died, God was willing to completely forgive the wicked person who repented. As Ezekiel put it:

If the wicked man turns from all the sins which he has committed, keeps all my statutes, and does that which is lawful and right, then he shall surely live; he shall not die. All the transgressions that he has committed shall not be mentioned to him. In the righteousness he has done, he will live. (Ezek. 33:21-22)

I love the way God puts it in Isaiah:

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts. Let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. (Is. 55:7)

Does this sound like a God that sends people to hell for one sin?

God described himself to Moses is this way:

Yahweh, Yahweh God, merciful and gracious, patient, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands and forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin. (Ex. 34:6)

Never mind that God adds that he will not clear the guilty. Obviously, the wicked man who turns from his wickedness does not constitute the guilty. The wicked man who turns from his wickedness will never have the evil things he’s done mentioned to him.

As it turns out, we need help forsaking our evil ways.

Knowing what is righteous is not enough. That’s what Romans 7 is about. Showing us what’s good is not the same as our having the power to perform what is good.

It is that problem for which Jesus died. As Romans 8 puts it, "what the Law could not do" (empower us to perform what is good) "God did."

He then adds that the way God did this was by sending his Son is the likeness of our sinful flesh, as an offering for sin, so that the righteous requirement of the Law would be fulfilled in us if we walk by the Spirit.

What a wonderful deliverance!!!

God’s Ongoing Mercy

Even after we are empowered by the grace and Spirit of God to do good works (Eph. 2:10; Tit. 2:11-14), God’s mercy does not disappear.

He still plans on having to forgive us regularly.

There’s some clear statements to that effect. James, for example, says that we all stumble in many things (Jam. 3:2).

However, there’s verses that I think paint the picture better.

If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 Jn. 1:7-9)

I think it’s apparent that even in 1 John, perhaps the strictest letter in the New Testament, it is made clear that God expects to be forgiving us regularly.

John goes on to say that the very purpose he’s writing is so that we don’t sin (2:1). But he immediately follows that with, "If anyone does sin," and he goes on to make it clear that both the Father and the Son forgive us with kindness, being on our side.

So Where’s the Line?

Whenever I say that we will be judged by our works, and that our eternal life will be on the line (Rom. 2:5-8; 1 Pet. 1:17; 2 Pet. 1:5-11; Rev. 3:4-5; and others), people always want to know where the line is.

In fact, many don’t want to know where the line is; instead they object to the possibility that there even could be a line.

What can I say? It’s the Scriptures that say God is a Judge. If there’s a Judge, then there’s a decision being made. Some will be saved, some will be lost, and both the saved and the lost will be saved or lost on the basis of their works.

That’s what the Bible says, anyway.

We’re supposed to be scared that we’ll cross the line (1 Pet. 1:17; 1 Cor. 10:12).

We looked already at the suggestion that there is a line. Exodus 34:6-7 says that God has mercy for thousands, but he will by no means clear the guilty. There are those who are under his mercy, and there are those who are "the guilty," and God is waiting for them to turn from their wicked ways.

The New Testament says very similar things.

In Gal. 6:7-9, Paul says, "God is not mocked."

There are those who stumble, yet they nonetheless walk in the light, and the blood of Christ cleanses their sin. They confess their sins, and God forgives their sins.

And then there’s those whose life mocks God, and they will reap corruption because they sow to the flesh. They are not under God’s mercy, they are not in the light, and they are not confessing their sins.

Of those people, God says, "They profess to know God, but in works they deny him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work" (Tit. 1:16).

There are those who have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, when they sin, and then there are those who practice the works of the flesh and thus do not inherit God’s kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5).

You can see this happening in Jesus’ letters to the churches in Rev. 2 & 3.

One of my favorite parts of those chapters is the letter to Sardis. There he says that there are those who have not defiled their garments, and they are "worthy."

You can see the different ways Jesus deals with the sins of the churches. There are those who are worthy, and who will walk with him in white, and there are those who will not.

There are those that he is simply correcting (Rev. 2:24), and there are those that he is threatening with being vomited out of his mouth (3:16) or having their candlestick removed (2:5).

Thus, there is a line.

The line, however, is for the stubborn. It is for those that mock God. It is for those whose lives deny that they know God.

It is not for those who confess their sins and walk in the light, yet happen to stumble.

Those people can know God as the God who abundantly pardons, whose mercies are new every morning, and who does not impute our sins to us.

Paul’s Preaching

This all fits with the fact that Paul summed up his preaching by saying that what he was proclaiming was …

… that they should repent and turn to God and do works appropriate to repentance. (Acts 26:20)

Was this really what Paul was preaching?

Yes, it was … at least according to Paul.

We’ve gotten so stuck in Romans that we have created an interpretation of Romans that contradicts Paul’s Gospel! Out of the very book in which he says he’s not ashamed of the Gospel (1:16)!

Romans does not contradict the idea that Paul preached that the Gentiles should repent and turn to God and do works appropriate to repentance. In Romans 6, he exhorts them to submit their body parts to God for his service so that they don’t die (6:16-23). In Romans 8 he tells them that if they put to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit, then they will live, but if they live according to the flesh, they will die.

These things are incredibly consistent in Scripture.

They’re just inconsistent with our traditions.

Summing Up Works and Mercy

The focus of God is love. Not only are the two greatest commandments to love God and your neighbor, but the apostle Paul says that loving your neighbor fulfills the entire Law (Rom. 13:8-10).

God is not focused on nitpicking us to death for a wrong word, a foul mood, or some other act of human frailty.

God is looking for those who walk according to the Spirit, so that he can shower them with mercy and not hold their sins against them.

But to those who make a habit of living according to the flesh and make no effort to live spiritually or to learn or obey the commands of Christ, he will not be mocked. Sow to the flesh, and you will reap corruption.

Therefore, do not grow weary in doing good, for in due season you will reap [eternal life] if you do not lose heart. (Gal. 6:10)

We’ll see how much blogging I can get done tonight. I hope to write more than one.

I’ve done 4 parts of a series on the appearance of Paul before tonight. This is Part 6 because I skipped part 4 in order to do part 5 on exhortation, which I think is very important.

All of those were from 1 Thessalonians, chapter 2.

Now I’m continuing to skip part 4 so that I can get to the part that doesn’t come from 1 Thess. 2.

This is 2 Cor. 10:10 …

For his letters, they say, are weighty and powerful, but in bodily presence he’s week, and his speech is unimpressive.

Paul the Famous Preacher?

Nowadays messages given by preachers are well-prepared. They are not only taught how to outline and write a sermon, but they are taught how to deliver it as well.

There’s a lot of shouting along with careful use of pauses and even quiet whispers for effect. A properly trained preacher uses hand motions, and he makes sure to move his body around—whether by walking or by vigorous gestures—to keep his audience’s attention.

Most sermons have three points, and if possible, they should all begin with the same letter.

Not Paul’s. The report about him is that his speech was unimpressive.

Paul’s Purpose

I remember the first time I did a radio program on a Christian station in Sacramento.

As soon as I got done, I got my first phone call at the station. Because I was on in the evening, the front desk was closed, and the technician and I listened to the answering machine pick up the call.

"I don’t know who this guy is," the caller began. "He never gave any credentials, and he didn’t even preach! He just talked!"

The caller would have had a hard time with the apostle Paul, too. Paul was concerned about content, not presentation.

I … did not come with excellency of speech or wisdom … I was with you in weakness, in fear, and with much trembling. My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of Spirit and power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of man, but on the power of God. (1 Cor. 2:1,3-4)

Paul had something to say, and he was not ashamed of it.

He knew that his Gospel was the power of God to salvation, and he was content to let God back it up, not his seminary training.

And don’t be confused; Paul had seminary training. He studied under Gamaliel. He knew human wisdom, and he makes it clear in Romans that he knows how to logically argue.

He saved his logical arguments, however, for those who were already convinced. Those that he had to convince, he sought to convince with the straight powerful words of the Gospel.

The verse I left out above says, "I determined to know nothing among except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2).

Learning from the apostle Paul

It would do us good to learn from Paul. I cannot imagine him recommending three point sermons with each point starting with the same letter.

It’s not the ability to be remembered that makes a good sermon; it’s the power of God that makes a good sermon.

The whole idea of picking a pastor from a school somewhere is completely contrary to the spirit of the New Covenant. Shepherds were chosen from among the people, and the Christians knew their shepherds. They knew their history in Christ, they knew their testimony, and they knew the power of their walk with the Lord.

That’s why the writer of Hebrews could tell us to submit to our leaders "considering the result of their behavior" (Heb. 13:7).

That’s why Timothy and Titus were left in Ephesus and Crete, respectively, to appoint elders.

One early Christian wrote:

Tested men, our elders, preside over us, obtaining that honor not by purchase, but by established character. (Tertullian, Apology 39, c. A.D. 200)

There’s some things we need to do differently?

Let me ask, when you teach or when you hear teaching, is it the enticing words of man’s wisdom, or is it the power of God?

Don’t let this post stop you from reading the previous one I just wrote, which is better and more important.

Not that this one isn’t important, so …

Blessing and Cursing

I remember my surprise the first time I really noticed Proverbs 26:2 as I was reading …

Like a flitting sparrow, like a flying swallow, so a curse without cause shall not alight. (NKJV)

A curse without cause shall not alight?

Doesn’t that suggest that a curse with cause shall alight?

Real Blessing and Real Cursing

Remember the story of Balaam? Balak of Moab hired Balaam to curse the Israelites.

Balak was scared of Israel. He hired Balaam because he believed that Balaam’s curse would really happen. It would hinder the Israelites.

In other words, Balak—and Balaam who accepted his employ—believed that a curse would cause real world damage.

Remember Jacob and Esau?

Jacob sneaked into Isaac’s tent to steal Esau’s blessing, which was his by right because Esau sold it to him for a bowl of lentils.

When Esau came later, seeking a blessing, Jacob said …

Behold, I have made him your ruler, and I have given him all his relatives as servants. I have sustained him with corn and wine. What shall I do for you now, my son? (Gen. 27:37)

It’s apparent, isn’t it, that Isaac believed his blessing had power. He did not talk about wishing something were so. He talked about "making him" and "giving him" and "sustaining him."

No wonder the Scripture says death and life are in the power of the tongue (Prov. 18:21).

Dealing with Curses

I believe the Bible is correct. I believe blessing and cursing carry power, though that power varies from person to person depending on their faith and sincerity.

However, the Scriptures do not only talk about the power of blessing and cursing. They talk also of the power of those who follow God …

A great example is Balaam, whom we have mentioned.

Balaam obviously knew the power of cursing, or he would never have accepted Balak’s offer. Yet, when it came time to curse Israel, he was unable to. He excused himself to Balak with, "How shall I curse those whom God has not cursed?" (Numbers 23:8)

Also, as we saw in the verse that begins this post, Proverbs claims that a curse without cause shall not alight.

Finally, the Scriptures say repeatedly to those who inherit the promises of Abraham, "I will curse those who curse you."

Cursing Versus Cussing

In modern times we have turned do not curse into do not cuss.

Have you ever wondered why damn and hell are cuss words?

They are cuss words because they were originally curse words. People would tell other people, "God damn you," as in, "May God condemn you."

Similarly, "Go to hell" was a curse that at one time people meant.

Cursing someone to be condemned by God and to go to hell are things the Bible forbids to Christians. We are told to bless and not curse by Paul and to bless even those who curse us by Jesus himself?

Why should we worry? If we are under God’s blessing, how can a mere man curse us? If we give no cause, then a curse should not alight.

Worse, those who curse us face being cursed by God. Thus, it is a matter of kindness to bless in return so that they are not damned by God.

Of course, we have added a lot of other cuss words that are not curse words since cursing became cussing. I won’t print any of them on my blog, of course.

Cussing

This section is completely and aside. It adds nothing to what’s above, but it’s related, and I thought you’d be interested in this.

The Scriptures say nothing about cussing because cussing wasn’t invented back when the Scriptures were written. They still knew about cursing. They didn’t know there were words you shouldn’t say just because they have 4 letters in them.

That doesn’t mean we should cuss.

The Scriptures do forbid us "filthiness, silly talk, and jesting" (Eph. 5:3).

I don’t believe that means never telling a joke. If it does, then you might as well curse me with going to hell because I’m definitely on my way straight there.

I think that verse is talking about being crude and silly. Christians are told to be sensible and responsible (my interpretation of sober and grave, which I think can be justified by the Greek words).

No one wants to lean upon or trust a crude or silly person.

Cussing is a sign of a weak intellect. By that I don’t mean people who cuss aren’t smart. I mean they’re lazy, indifferent to the feelings of others, uncontrolled, and offensive. In other words, they’re wimpy about putting effort into their lives and relationships.

Most cussing can be replaced by very effective adjectives, and overcoming a bit of laziness will allow us to communicate our feelings more fully, more accurately, and with respect.

I was reading one of my own archived posts, and I was reminded why we do this.

What do we do?

We take a stand for change. We preach a Gospel that demands the counting of the cost and explains the cost as everything. We say you cannot be a Christian without doing so because cannot is the word Christ used (Luke 14:26-33).

The fact is, the vast majority of "Christians" don’t make it.

Many of those are trying, or at least want to try, but they don’t know how.

They pray more, read the Bible more, and it makes them dislike prayer and the Bible more than ever. It’s supposed to help them, but it seems just to condemn them.

Then they fall away, get on the internet, get besieged by atheists with loads of information on problems with the Bible and Christianity, and they join the attack on the religion that made them feel bad.

What Do We Need To Change

1. Preach a true Gospel. Let people know that Jesus wants everything, that he’s worth everything, and that the church is for those that at least want to have their lives changed by Jesus.
2. Bring them into the church—not a club with bi-weekly meetings, but a family. Show them that you meant what you said, and that your house is their house, your family is their family, and your money is their money.

Pretty dangerous to do that second one, huh?

It’s not so dangerous when you do that with disciples—with people who are giving up everything for Christ.

A Caveat Based on the Mercy of God

I do often sound like God is a harsh taskmaster.

It’s not so.

You do have to give up the world. The Gospel is an exchange of your own life for Christ’s life. Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone. It is only after you die that you enter Christ’s family.

The Gospel cannot be compromised.

But …

But we’re not talking about entering a life where God is looking over your shoulder, measuring the length of your skirt, and pinch testing the tightness of your jeans.

We’re talking about obeying Christ, the friend of sinners, whose burden is easy and whose yoke is light. We’re talking about opening your home to strangers, about being free from caring about money, about trusting and praising God in joyful delight, about fellowshipping with Christ and with his people.

Entering the life of Christ is not entering a monastery. It is entering the wonderful, joyful life of Christ. Holy, yes, but also a touch wild, a touch rebellious, and more likely to get you called a glutton, winebibber, and kook than to be called righteous.

Jesus hung out with the wrong people. His holiness offended the Pharisees, and he openly expressed distaste for them. He publicly called them snakes and pretenders. He accused them of devouring widows’ houses!

You do have to be brave to be a Christian. You do have to help the needy.

You do not have to be boring, and you certainly don’t need the righteousness of the Pharisees.

Jesus commands are given so that your joy may be full.

Final Comment: Continuing in Christ’s Commands

Okay, that was a long caveat.

Back to the point.

If we are going to continue in Christ’s commands, we are going to have to do it together. We need each other. Those who sell everything are supposed to get the pearl of great price in return, not just a bunch of rules about how to live.

In other words, when the seed falls into the ground and dies, it’s supposed to come out never alone again.

We’re supposed to be a family, but we’re never going to be a family with people who don’t give a hoot about Christ’s commands or who explain why they’re unnecessary. Wish them well, kiss them goodbye, then dust your feet off and leave them.

Same with the Pharisees. There’s no hope of bringing them around until they repent of their evil ways, stumbling little ones.

(I’m a little afraid I’ve been a Pharisee on the internet by accident, though those who know me would never call me a Pharisee in person.)

But with those who will fall in love with Jesus, boldly or quietly, we can be family. We can take care of each other, worship God together, and make sure none of us is ever alone again except for when we’re sent on a mission by God.

In A.D. 325, Eusebius, the first church historian and the bishop (link opens in new window) of the church in Caesarea, wrote a letter.

To me, it is one of the most surprisingly ignored letters in the history of the church.

THe letter is an explanation of the Nicene Creed immediately after its acceptance by the bishops present at the Council of Nicea. Despite the fact that Eusebius says, “We did not neglect to investigate the distinct sense of the expressions,” no one, not even historians, seems to pay any attention to Eusebius’ explanation of what was meant by the wording of the Nicene Creed.

Understand that the Nicene Creed is the basis of the Apostles Creed, which is recited in all Catholic churches and many Protestant churches every week to this day. Numerous Christian organizations use the Apostles Creed as a basic statement of faith, requiring all those they fellowship with to assent to it.

Yet most, if not all, of those churches don’t believe the Nicene Creed.

Shocking Statements in the Nicene Creed

The most shocking statement of all in the Nicene Creed is right on the surface. It is its basic declaration of belief:

We believe in one God, the Father …

This statement is not followed by a clarification explaining that what we actually believe is in one God who is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Instead it reads …

We believe in one God, the Father … and in one Lord, Jesus Christ … and in the Holy Spirit

We Believe in One God, the Father

I’m reading a book right now by Justo Gonzalez, an excellent, well-informed historian.

Justo Gonzales is a professional historian. He knows a lot more than I do. I love his books, and I highly recommend him.

Yet in his chapter on the Trinity, when he expounds on the Nicene Creed for 6 pages, he never mentions that it says that there is one God, the Father. He never mentions that Christian writings previous to Nicea use the same terminology. He never points out that even the apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8:6, uses the same terminology.

Nor does he mention that Jesus Christ himself calls the Father, separating the Father from himself, the one true God (Jn. 17:3).

Combating Arianism

The Nicene Creed was convened to put the doctrines of Arius, an elder in the church at Alexandria, to rest.

Arius taught that the Son, Jesus, was created by the Father in the beginning in the same manner that angels, people, and the universe were created. He taught that Jesus was created from nothing.

Admittedly, he also taught that the Son was the first and greatest creation of God the Father. He taught that the Son went on to create everything else.

Nonetheless, he taught that the Son was created from nothing, and the church objected to this.

The Difference between Arianism and Orthodox Christianity

Today, most people believe that the difference between Arius and all the bishops at Nicea (except two who embraced Arius’ doctrines) is that Arius taught that the Father was the one God while everyone else taught that the one God was three persons.

Let me pause to point out here that there’s an element of truth in this. The Trinity is a complicated subject, which is the reason that there is so much error on the subject.

The real difference between Arianism and the Nicene Creed is this …

Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Son was created from the substance of God, and Arius taught that the Son was created from nothing.

Both views allowed Christians to say that there is one God, the Father. Obviously, that had to be true because the Nicene Creed says that there is one God, the Father.

The Nicene view, which is taught in every early Christian writing from the time of the apostles until Nicea, teaches that the Son was then birthed from the substance of God, not created from nothing.

Matter and “God”

The early church liked to call everything God created “matter.” It didn’t matter—sorry for the accidental pun—whether they were referring to dirt, air, stars, animals, the spirit of men, or angels. If God created it from nothing, then it was matter.

Matter had a beginning, so matter is not eternal.

Anything, they argued, that had a beginning could have an end.

Therefore, if the Son was created from nothing, it didn’t matter what you called him, he wasn’t really eternal, and he isn’t really divine. If he had a beginning, then he can have an end.

Thus, Arianism made the Son to be mortal.

To the early churches, the only substance in the universe besides matter was “God.” The divine substance is that unknowable essence that God is made of. That substance alone is eternal. That substance alone has always existed.

In the same way, that substance alone cannot cease to exist. It had no beginning, and thus it can have no end.

The substance of God is truly eternal.

Homoousios

The Nicene Creed was not created from nothing, either.

The early churches all had their own creed. It was called the rule of faith, and it was taught to every member at baptism.

The Nicene Creed was based on the rule of faith of the church at Caesarea.

Eusebius’ letter gives the church at Caesarea’s rule of faith and explains that it was agreed to by all the members of the council. The council then added to it …

It was Constantine who …

… exhort[ed] all present to give [the creed of Caesarea] their assent … with the insertion, however, of that single word homoousios.

Homoousios means "same substance."

In other words, the Council of Nicea was trying to emphasize that the Son was of the same substance as God, the Father.

In this way, the council emphasized that the Son was truly eternal and truly divine.

Emphasizing Substance

The emphasis on substance is all over the Nicene Creed …

"… that is, of the substance of the Father"

"… God from God … true God from true God"

"… begotten, not made, of the same substance as the Father"

And the council added something at the end that most of us do not repeat today …

"But those who … assert that ‘he is of other substance or essence than the Father’ … the catholic and apostolic church of God anathematizes.

Three times in that short creed the substance of God is mentioned.

Actually, the substance of God is mentioned four times because "God from God" and "true God from true God" is also a reference to the substance or essence of God.

The phrase "God from God," nor ever "true God from true God," cannot be a reference to saying that the Son is the one true God, or "part" of the one true God because the creed has already said, "There is one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ."

Why Does This Matter

Why am I bringing all this up? Does this really matter?

The reason I give for bringing all this up is that the Council of Nicea was convened to put Arianism to rest. Yet our interpretation of the Nicene Creed has allowed Arianism to crop up anew in the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Yes, it is our fault that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are able to prosper and thrive.

The Nicene Creed is scriptural. Understood correctly, it allows us still to say what 1 Corinthians 8:6 says, "For us there is but one God, the Father."

The Nicene Creed also allows us to understand John 17:3 in its plain sense. It’s part of a prayer by Jesus, and Jesus says, "This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

By the Nicene understanding, we can still believe that there is only one God, the Father, yet allow Jesus to still be truly divine and called God.

By our modern understanding, Jesus is truly divine, but we don’t believe that the Father is the one true God, as Jesus said. Instead, we believe that the one true God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together in some mysterious way that confuses everyone.

As a result, the Jehovah’s Witnesses thrive on quoting John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. Those verses seem to support the JW position and refute ours.

Those verses do refute ours. They do not, however, support the JW view, and that’s why there’s so many other verses that we can use to answer the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Verses Versus Verses

Today, with all our various modern traditions, it is normal for churches to use verses against one another. One church uses verses that seem to teach eternal security, and another church uses verses that seem to teach we can lose our salvation.

This doesn’t seem to bother us. We present our verses, and as long as we think we have more verses than the other church, then we can hold onto our doctrine.

It’s almost like we’re content to believe the Bible contradicts itself!

It doesn’t contradict itself. We’ve simply lost a lot of apostolic teachings over the centuries, and we’re not interested enough to get them back!

(By the way, I cover apostolic teaching on eternal security and losing your salvation on numerous pages of my Christian history site, such as one I titled Sola Fide.)

Summing Up the Council of Nicea

According to the Council of Nicea—and according to the Bible and the writings of the churches prior to Nicea—there is one God, the Father.

Then, either eternally—so that it had always happened, there being no time prior to the beginning—or in the beginning the one God, the Father, gave birth to his Word. The Word was "begotten, not made."

The Son was not created from nothing. He was, quite literally, the Word or Reason of God. Formerly, inside of the Father, having always existed inside of the Father, he was birthed as a second person to Almighty God, thus making God the Father and the Word his Son.

What About the Holy Spirit?

The Council of Nicea doesn’t address this. They state simply, "We believe in the Holy Spirit."

The Scriptures don’t address the subject of God’s Spirit very well, either, though I should point out that the Spirit of God is mentioned throughout the Old Testament, yet the Jews didn’t (and still don’t) teach a duality. They don’t teach two persons in one God. They simply mention God’s Spirit.

Later, after Nicea, the Church added that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father." (I use "churches" prior to Nicea because that’s how it worked. After Nicea, once there were general councils and four bishops who ruled over all of Christendom, I use "Church.")

Sometime before A.D. 800, the Roman Catholic Church made it "proceeds from the Father and the Son," and the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox are still divided over that to this day.

Scriptural and Early Church Support

This blog is already incredibly long. I did not fill it with Scripture or early church quotes. You can find such references at Christian History for Everyman.

I will point out that the early churches used to quote Psalm 45:1 from the Septuagint, "My heart has emitted a good Word," and Prov. 22:8, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways and works," to support their view.

Like John 17:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have co-opted Prov. 22:8 to their view because we have forgotten what the early church taught.

I’d like us to be able to understand the Scriptures for what they say, know what the apostles taught their churches, and understand the Nicene Creed.

Thus, this post on my blog.

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s go backwards through those issues …

In the Gospel the Righteousness of God is Revealed

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

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

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

As Paul says later:

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t Misunderstand This

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

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

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

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

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

Revealed Righteousness

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

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

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

Paul has something to say to such people …

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

This is not the only place Paul says this …

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

Clear enough, don’t you think?

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

The Power of God to Salvation

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

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

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

Jesus died to change that.

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

But Jesus can …

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

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

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

Just a few verses later, he answers those questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answering Jewish Questions About Paul’s Gospel

Romans is all about Paul defending his Gospel.

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

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

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

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

What About Me?

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

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

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

How do you obtain that power?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There’s 2 reasons for this:

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

1. Having an official canon of Scripture is bad

It’s not historical.

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

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

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

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

It leads to a "magic book" mentality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul agrees:

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

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

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

This should follow from what I’ve written above.

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

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

But we don’t get it.

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

Not perform religious rituals … obey Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, they don’t teach anything else.

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

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

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

Figure that one out.

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

God is able to make his will known.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Note

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

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

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

Confused about Christianity?

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

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

Are you ready?

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

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

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

Sound Doctrine According to Titus Two

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

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

Maybe we have some things to change.

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

1 Timothy 6:3: What Sound Doctrine Is NOT

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

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

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

Then …

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

So, let me ask …

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

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

The result of ignoring sound doctrine.

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

Let’s keep this section short.

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

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

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

What Grace Is NOT

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

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

How many times have you heard that nonsense.

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

Last Little Bit

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

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

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

We’re supposed to ignore them!

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

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

‘Nuff said.

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

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

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

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

Why I Reject the Authority of the Roman Catholic Church

And Why You Should, Too

Thank you for your kind letter.

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

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

Protestants don’t do much better.

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

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

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

I like to say that there are two things we preach, which are two reasons for changing the way we "do" church in America.

1. The Gospel is a life for a Life. Jesus calls us to give up our lives and enter into his. In the mind of Christ and the apostles, you can’t be a Christian without forsaking your life (dying to self) and giving yourself to follow Jesus Christ.
2. Such disciples are called to do that together. Not together as in holding a couple meetings a week or attending the same Bible study. Together as in family: together for our whole lives, taking care of each other’s needs. Christ’s family, filled with a love given by the Holy Spirit, should be far closer than biological families.

Our churches don’t preach that Gospel … that’s a problem.

Our churches are in the way of disciples being together. When disciples are forced—whether by false teaching or by an obligation to attend an institutional church—to be in fellowship with those who are not disciples, then their unity is destroyed.

That, too, is a problem.

But I don’t want to write about those things today. Instead, I want to write about a practical application of those things. I want to address …

What is Salvation?

Today I got an email notification that someone I once knew is becoming a pastor of a denominational church.

I wish him the best, but his situation is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with today’s Christianity.

This person lived at Rose Creek Village, very close to me, for a year or two. I got to know him very well. Really nice guy. If you met him, you’d like him. I liked him.

But he has a problem that is fatal to following Christ. He is unable to deal with difficult situations, even to the point of dishonesty. There are many problems he’d rather dodge than deal with.

You can’t do that and help people.

You certainly can’t do that and be a shepherd in the church of God.

In almost every denominational church I’ve been a part of, such a problem would go on forever, never dealt with.

Nor is it a minor problem. It affects his happiness and the happiness of his family on an ongoing basis. Because he can’t face problems, his family’s problems go along, never dealt with. Indeed, they had been compounding for decades when I met him.

Is such a man saved?

It depends what you mean. Is he going to heaven? I hope so. I hope he’s made enough of a real commitment to Jesus Christ and that he’s a kind (and thus loving) enough person that God will have mercy on him and let him into heaven.

But if you ask whether he is saved from himself, from the world, and from the devil, the answer is a clear no. There are areas where the devil has a free reign in his life and his family’s life to bring difficulties and torment, intense heartache that could be avoided by the teaching of Christ and power of the Holy Spirit … teaching and power that he cannot bring because he can’t face the problems.

He’s not unusual. He’s typical.

How many men and women have I seen weeping about the problems in their life that they can’t overcome despite a real faith in Christ?

I’ve seen many. And many others have simply learned to live with their difficulties, their addictions, and their conflicts because preaching is not enough to help them.

A Salvation That Comes Only from the Church

Dare I say that a real faith in Christ and good, Scriptural preaching are not enough to deliver men from their sins?

I do dare, and I dare because the Bible says so.

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

There are sins that can only be overcome by being in the church, and a Biblical church at that … like the ones the apostles started. Churches that are family, that share their possessions and their lives, that take care of one another like brothers and sisters. Nay, not just like brothers and sisters, but like brothers and sisters empowered with a love that comes from heaven.

Until the day we’re willing to overthrow the traditions of men and reject a concept of church that accepts anyone who walks through the front door, we will not see the salvation I’m speaking of in this blog.