The Rest of the Old Old Story

I wrote a booklet that I really believe the Lord gave to me. I got the whole book practically dropped in my heart word for word on a 20-minute drive to work. When I got there, I sat down and typed the thing out in no more than 3 hours. I just gave it as I got it.

It’s a brief history of the first 300 years of the church from the devil’s perspective. It’s the story of how we went from a church that could boast that even its blue-collar workers and old women, even if they didn’t know how to express their faith, knew how to live it. They knew how to love and to turn the other cheek.

About 180 years after Athenagoras wrote that boast, Christians brawled in a church yard until the "gore" ran into the streets, according to Socrates Scholasticus.

My booklet describes, from the devil’s perspective, how that change happened.

I think it’s really interesting, and you can get it here. It’s for sale for $5 so that other web sites will be willing to help me get it out, but it’s not money I’m after. If it’s a problem to pay $5, just email me and I’ll email it to you.

This post isn’t meant to be about the book, though. It’s about how to undo the devil’s work …

The Devil’s Plan

The book outlines the devil’s very effective plan in 3 steps:

1. Persecute hard and fast; drive off the weak and get the strong to be looking around them rather than upwards.
2. Bring a boring peace afterward that a "war-torn" church doesn’t know how to handle.
3. As soon as the church is complacent, fill it with nominal believers so the strong ones feel like outsiders.

I don’t know what you would think of that plan in advance, but in hind sight? Awesome plan. It was entirely successful, producing a violent and worldly church with leaders that were almost exclusively ambitious, politically-inclined appointees of the emperor.

Undoing the Devil’s Work: Step One

If we’re going to get back to apostolic Christianity, we’re going to have to undo what the devil did.

Primarily, what the devil did was fill the church with complacent, nominal believers who are not disciples of Christ.

How many times have you heard a pastor say, "If I preached that, I’d lose half my church"?

Most of the time that pastor is wrong. If he preached the Gospel Christ preached, complete with "Unless you forsake all you have, you cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33), then he’ll lose more like 95% of his church.

Hmm, no. Based on the experience of a couple pastors I know about, he’d lose half his church, and then the other half would drive him out.

The first step in undoing the devil’s work is for the saints to be together without those that are only church attenders.

That probably isn’t going to happen in a church building. The saints are probably going to have to "come out of her."

Undoing the Devil’s Work: Step Two

The "come out of her" part is happening. George Barna says that 20 million Christians have left institutional churches in the last couple decades. He calls it a revolution.

It’s not a revolution yet.

It’s not a revolution until we get those saints back together.

It’s not enough to pull everyone out of the harlot. No church is not really any better than a fake church.

We’ve got to learn how to be in unity.

And about that, we’re clueless.

Unity

I can’t address uniting today’s very misguided saints in one blog post, but let me throw out a couple thoughts that perhaps y’all can run with.

Unity is spiritual. If God provides spiritual unity between you and a brother or sister, you are not allowed to break up that spiritual unity over your stupid Bible interpretations.

Oh, yeah, that’s right. You don’t think your Bible interpretation is stupid. You think that you came up with a spiritual and accurate Bible interpretation in order to produce the evil fruit of division.

Only bad trees produce bad fruit.

Listen, God gave you a foundation to work from. That foundation says that the Lord knows those who are his and that those who name the name of Christ must depart from iniquity.

You’re allowed to divide from adulterers, drunkards, and even greedy people (1 Cor. 5:10-13).

You’re not allowed to divide from people who understand the Trinity or eternal security differently than you.

Doctrine and Division

Those who want to justify their division over doctrines point to verses like Rom. 16:17-18.

However, those who point to those verses do not understand what doctrine Paul taught.

Read what Paul says sound doctrine is in Titus 2.

If people agree with you on those doctrines in Titus 2—things like sobriety, sensibleness, faith, love, kindness, loving your spouse and children—then you’re agreed on doctrine. Every Christian must assent to departing from inquity. Every Christian is called to forsake their own lives.

Did you know the majority of the early church did not believe in the Trinity?

Mind you, they were wrong, but Tertullian excused them as ignorant and uninformed, and then says the ignorant and uninformed will always constitute the majority of the church.

But not the willfully sinful!

You are not supposed even to eat with those that are in unrepentant sin (again, 1 Cor. 5:10-13).

Overthrowing the Devil

Do you want to overthrow the devil?

Join forces with people who believe in following Christ wholeheartedly and who have agreed to depart from iniquity (even if there’s some weakness that you have to help with), and you will find incredible power.

You will find such incredible power that the devil will hurriedly rise up and fight you, too. He’ll apply all the same tactics he applied to the early churches.

Most likely, he’ll win because you’re poorly equipped, you don’t know what you’re getting into, you’re unaware that you don’t have the right to divide, and you trust your interpretation of the Bible more than you trust God to guide you (even though the Bible itself says that’s backward). You also don’t have an apostle to bail you out when you have big problems.

But since there’s no other way to win, you’re going to have to try it.

We’d love to help when you do.

I wasn’t going to blog today; I don’t have time. Nonetheless, I simply can’t let this pass.

I couldn’t believe it when I read this:

This is what stuck in Alex’s mind, and it led him to make a fateful mistake: He started to read the Fathers of the Church. In a short time it was all over for him. He realized that the earliest Christians were, uh, Catholics! Alex saw the continuity between what the writers of the early centuries professed and what the Christians who saw our Lord professed. There was a straight line connecting them. The sacraments, the papacy, authority, Mary and the saints—the whole works. (Restless Pilgrim)

Mary? The papacy? In the church fathers?

If this blog were talking about 5th and 6th century Christians, I could understand that. After virtually the whole Roman empire became "Christians" in the 4th century, all sorts of idolatry come roaring in. The emperor Julian the Apostate commented that Christians were more into hero worship than the pagans, and that was just A.D. 360 or so.

However, this blog specifically mentioned "the Fathers of the Church, those earliest Christian writers who lived in the first, second, and third centuries."

The Pope Before Nicea

In the first, second, and third centuries, there is dead silence on the matter of the pope because there was no pope. Oops, sorry … the bishop of Alexandria was being called "The Papa"—the pope—by the mid-3rd century.

So what made Alex think there was a pope in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century fathers?

• Was it Clement of Rome’s use of elder and bishop interchangeably to indicate that there was no individual bishop in Rome in A.D. 96?
• Was it that Ignatius’ letter to Rome is astonishingly silent on the matter of a bishop there, when he praises and extols the bishop of every other church he writes to?
• Was it the 7th Council of Carthage, where "Saint" Cyprian led 82 bishops in rejecting a decision of Stephen, bishop of Rome in A.D. 250?
• Was it the comment made by "Saint" Cyprian at that council that no bishop could set himself up as a bishop over other bishops?
• Was it Irenaeus comment that Rome was a really important church because it was founded by Paul and Peter, but any apostolic church would do for showing that truth was passed down from the apostles to his time (A.D. 185 or so)?
• Was it Firmilian’s letter to "Saint" Cyprian commenting that it was unconscionable for Stephen to set himself up as the successor of Peter? Or was it perhaps Cyprian’s teaching, On the Unity of the Church, which says that every bishop inherited the authority of Peter?

Mary Before the Council of Nicea

Admittedly, I’m a little uninformed on the fathers from the late 3rd century. In the 2nd century, however, Mary is simply ignored. The same with Tertullian and Origen from the early 3rd centuries. There is simply no indication that she was venerated in any way.

I just did a search on Catholic sources. They have one quote from Justin (A.D. 150) and one from Irenaeus (A.D. 185) saying approximately the same thing. Eve, the virgin, fell by disobedience, and Mary, the virgin, corrected this by her obedience.

Recapitulation is found here and there in the fathers, and it’s an inspiring teaching. Adam sinned through a tree; Jesus obeyed through a tree. Adam sinned in a garden; Jesus gave himself to God in a garden. There’s a lot of other such symbology, which is really awesome to read about.

But none of that gives the slightest indication of Mariology in the early church fathers!

Were the Early Church Fathers Catholic?

I have to suppose that if you are Protestant, and you have major objections to the Lord’s Supper as being more than symbolic, you could react and call the early church fathers Catholic. Ignatius calls the bread and wine the "medicine of immortality." Justin says that Christians received the meal as more than mere bread and wine.

Otherwise, I’m at a loss as to how anyone reading the 2nd century fathers could count them Catholic. There’s not a hint of it.

Even infant baptism isn’t mentioned–at least not specifically. It has to be read into a passing comment by Irenaeus about those who are born again, a list that includes infants. On the other hand, Justin—before Irenaeus—says that the apostles taught that baptism was a new birth since we had no choice in our natural birth, being too young to decide for ourselves. Tertullian—after Irenaeus—says that rushing children before they’re young enough to answer for themselves is a bad idea.

Someone needs to say that the early church fathers were not Catholic.

More importantly, someone needs to say that attending a Roman Catholic congregation will not teach you about God’s ways, will not give you a real family, God’s family, that the new covenant promises (though most Protestant churches won’t, either; a new Gospel, which is nothing but the apostles’ old one, is needed), and will not provide the strength you need to continue as self-forsaking disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Our call is that those who obey the Gospel of Jesus—that those who hear would forsake their own lives to follow Jesus Christ together—would quit attending clubs with weekly meetings and would join together into one family, dependent upon the Spirit of God as their guide and teacher, and that we could forget about denominations, which are nothing more than fleshly divisions, and forget about the rule of a pompous prelate in a faraway land.

I mentioned in the last post that I would be asking y’all to help me write a book.

Are you willing to do that?

It’s working title is Things as I See Them. I have three chapters and an introduction up at my Christian History site (link takes you straight to introduction to book).

Thank you for looking at it and for any input you may have!

By the way, I wrote the introduction and the chapters on the Gospel and the Church one day, and I wrote the chapter on the Word of God on another day. So there’s only 2 days of work into it right now. I’m planning on working on this with you if you’ll help me!

I spent yesterday starting another book. I wrote a chapter and a half, and a finished the 2nd chapter this morning (rough draft only).

I’d like to get your help in writing that book, but I have to set some things up to make that happen. So hopefully, telling you how you can help me with that will be a tomorrow blog.

Today, I want to share 2 paragraphs from an email I sent.

Just to think about.

First …

Lead-in or Introduction

The email was about the fact that "sound doctrine," according to Scripture, involves things like the older men being reverent, dignified, sensible and sound in love, faith, and perseverance and the older women teaching the younger women how to love their husbands and raise their children.

That’s from Titus 2. Read it sometime and note that it starts by saying that these are the things that pertain to "sound doctrine."

So, here was my 2 paragraph comment at the end of my little dissertation.

2 Paragraphs To Chew or Choke On

Example

I’ll give you an example in the comment section so that this post stays short. It only takes a bite of meat to choke a person. No sense loading up the whole pork chop.

Today, I read where one more person claimed Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans as nobler in mind than the Thessalonians because they searched the Scriptures to test what Paul was saying.

It’s not true. Here’s the verse:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Bereans were commended for receiving the Word with all readiness of mind!

The Thessalonians rejected the Word; the Bereans received it. Acts is all about people receiving the Word. When they do, it is like a seed planted inside of them, and it grows into a full knowledge of how to follow God, so that all of them, from the least to the greatest, would know him (Heb. 8:11).

Yes, they also examined the Scriptures to see if what he was saying could really be true. But they were not commended for doing this. They were commended for receiving the Word.

The Pharisees searched the Scriptures daily, too, but they are not commended by Christ, they are rebuked by him.

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

What’s the difference between the Pharisees and the Bereans?

The difference is which of them were prepared to receive the Word readily. The Bereans were, and the Pharisees were not. Both searched the Scriptures, but one group was prepared to receive the Word, and the other was prepared to reject it.

Thus, the Bereans were not commended for testing Paul by the Scriptures; they were commended for being open to the Word.

Bonus Assumption

While we’re on things that just get repeated over and over but aren’t accurate, let’s do Romans 2:4 as well.

Or do you despise the wealth of God’s kindness, tolerance, and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads to repentance?

When we modern Christians quote it, we emphasize kindness: "It is the kindness of God that leads to repentance."

In other words, we use this verse to teach that if we want to produce repentance in people, then we need to show them the kindness of God, not his severity or judgment.

But the context makes it clear that Paul is emphasizing repentance, not kindness: "The kindness of God leads you to repentance."

In other words, the kindness, tolerance, and patience that God has shown you is not a reason for you to harden and continue in sin. God has been showing you kindness in order to give you time to repent.

The kindness of God is not the only thing that leads to repentance. Ps. 38, for example, is all about David repenting when God was angry at him. We all know that the Lord chastens those whom he loves.

Anyway, you can read the verses leading up to Rom. 2:4, and the context makes it clear what the verse is talking about.

This is another email I sent in response to questions that were asked.

In addition to the email I was responding to, I have had several recent emails from supporters of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Most are unable to even consider a thought outside their little boxes, and false beliefs about their “grand” heritage puff them up so they can’t imagine that they have to consider anything except their point of view.

This is why I dismiss their claims …

The Fall of the Church

I generally stick to the fathers from before Nicea because I think that after Nicea the church was basically destroyed. In A.D. 300, perhaps 10% of the empire called themselves Christian, but in A.D. 350 it would have been closer to 90%. That number jumped because the emperor “embraced” Christianity, not because the Gospel actually converted 80% of Roman citizens in 50 years.

Christianity Before the Fall

Before Nicea, I find the agreement among Christian writers remarkable. They have a view of the Trinity that is slightly different from ours, but they completely agree among themselves, and the Nicene Creed expresses their view, not ours. Their description of the basics of the faith is consistent, and their understanding of the church, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper are consistent.

Church leadership changed over that time. Their church meetings got larger, and so they got more organized, more often, and more centered on leaders.

The Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Trees Bearing Fruit

The problem with the Orthodox and Catholics boils down to one Biblical issue. Jesus said that we would know those who spoke for God by their fruit. The Orthodox and Catholics have not had good fruit for centuries, and at times the fruit of the RCC has been as evil as it is possible to be. Even today, almost all Catholics and Orthodox are Christian in name and ritual only. Their faith really doesn’t affect their behavior, and most of them have no idea what it is like to have the Spirit of God living inside of you.

If the fruit is bad, the tree is bad.

Salvation Outside the Church

Yes, both teach that there is no salvation outside the church. How I wish we could still teach that!!!

In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there was only one church. All churches that held that the apostles had taught the one true Gospel were united. They were holy, they were empowered by God, and they were separate from the world. They were an excellent testimony for the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

To willingly choose not to be a part of those churches, which constituted the one church and one mother of us all, was clearly a divisive and thus evil act.

Alas, we no longer have such a situation. To choose to be a part of the Catholic or Orthodox church will do you no good at all. If you are holy in their churches, it is because you learned to be holy somewhere else–whether from the Bible or from a Christian that has the Spirit of God. You will not learn to be holy from Catholic or Orthodox teaching.

Thus, they are in no position to say there’s no salvation outside their churches. The fact is, there is very little salvation inside their churches.

Salvation That Is "Revealed"
(Can Be Seen)

Paul said that he was not ashamed of the Gospel because it was the power of God to salvation, producing a justification that was revealed when people believed (Rom. 1:16-17). The RC and Orthodox Gospel produces no such justification.

Words vs. Power

Modern Christians are way too busy throwing words around. The life of Christ is not about words, it is about power. There’s a lot of talk among RC and Orthodox churches, but almost no power. Among Protestants, power to save and justify is found here and there, but you have a lot better shot than among the RC and Orthodox.

Finding People

My advice is always to look for the people who preach a Gospel that saves and that can be seen to save. You will know the good tree by its fruit, not by its empty words.

Hang with those people, and you will learn the doctrines that God cares about.

I’m traveling … not much time to be posting blogs, but this email discussion I’m having addresses an important issue. So here’s the email …

************

I don’t have the confidence that you have to say, “How can the pope and ecumenical bishops deny the first 300 years of the church if brought to them accurately?”

I’ve been asking questions of Christians–Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and Independents alike–for 28 years now. I used to believe that if they only knew what was true, they would change. It took me a long time and a lot of heartache to realize that most of them don’t want to know what is true. No matter how you present the truth, they will not understand it because they don’t want to understand it.

THE GATES OF HADES

I’d like to also question one of your premises. You said that the promise that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the church means that the true church will always be here until Jesus returns.

Does it really mean that? I know the Roman Catholic Church says it means that, but does that interpretation really make any sense?

Think about it. Since when are gates offensive weapons?

Gates are for defense. I think that Jesus is saying that the church, wherever it exists, will have the power to overthrow death (Hades being the place of the dead in Scripture). If it happens not to exist at some time, that doesn’t mean Jesus promise isn’t true. It’s not the gates of Hades that caused the church to begin accepting carnal people during the time of Constantine.

It is simply true that the testimony of the church was at least reduced and perhaps absent during the 4th century.

It is also true that if you wanted to see a group of people with the same testimony that 2nd century churches had–unity, love, commitment to Jesus Christ, rejection of this world–then the place to find that testimony was among the Anabaptists, not among the Catholics or Protestants.

Thus, I would argue that God doesn’t recognize or care about hierarchies. The church is an organism, not an organization, and it always has been.

Let’s take my small town, for example. If the Gospel of Christ is preached, and people begin to live by his Spirit, displaying the righteousness that is always the product of the Gospel, and uniting with one another as a family in love … why should those people bother to contact a hierarchy that is neither scripturally nor historically justified?

Why shouldn’t those people simply continue in the Gospel together, opening their hearts and homes for fellowship with any other churches living the same way?

As Tertullian put it: “Those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.”

It is teaching (and the holy living that results from teaching) that marks a church as apostolic, not its attachment to an unscriptural organization.

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?