In this article I outline seven (7) (really more) false teachings which make me mistrust theologians.
Don't Trust False Teachings in Commentaries
It is important to point out I am not someone on the periphery of higher education. I've been to college and am preparing to begin a PhD in a year. Part of the reason I went to school is to see if it was as "fallen away" as is reported.
Yes - it is! The below introduction of the following series of articles on the subject of "Jesus and Faith" produced push-back. Pastors, teachers, and theologians were offended that I dared say, much less produce a 'position paper' positing what you will read.
I ask that you read the entire series before rendering judgment.
The method for presentation here will be informal with respect to formatting and citations. Research necessary to accomplish affirmative posit(s) is limited in scope and does not extend beyond scripture and uncompartmentalized theology.
This was the introduction of a twenty-four (24) page paper I wrote in defense of whether Jesus had faith or not. If Jesus is God (John 1:1-3), why would He need faith in God?
The Bereans went directly to the scriptures to either validate or disprove what was being presented as truth. They were wise enough to treat even the Apostle Paul’s presentation as “additive commentary.”
Further, Jesus’ sacrifice rent (ripped) the veil of the temple allowing personal access to Himself. He is described as the Word so as the Bereans, we must walk through the veil into the presence of that Word, who is GOD.
I offer no scholarly articles, online commentaries, or theological journals as proof of posit. We seek resources that agree with us instead of congregating with those who cajole and challenge. This is evident in the current trend of individual preference with Bible translations.
Online commentaries are subject to both a Graeco-Western mindset and Euro horizonal bias. While this software has value, it exhibits error as well. For instance, the concept of “original sin” ascribed to Adam and Eve is error.
Two sins occurred prior to their decision. First, was that of Lucifer in Isaiah 14. Second was the serpent’s misuse of God’s Word in the seduction of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3.
Therefore, Adam and Eve committed the third sin.
This doesn’t include the unknown sin volume of angels who followed Lucifer’s rebellion. The affirmation of this couple as sin originator(s) must therefore be soundly rejected. Any “scholarly” resource indicating differently must not be trusted.
Current biblical study seems less dependent upon prayer and meditation as it is the “Google quick fix.” In effect, this has replaced the ripped veil of the temple with “search algorithms.” With respect to religious commentaries, we have no positive affirmation the men who wrote them were “moved to write as the Holy Spirit directed them to.”
Let those who have an ear hear.
Further, compartmentalized ‘norms’ are of no consideration here. Unveiled theology is the foundation. This term is what I use to describe: “a view of scripture without regard to finite time limits, writer, nor reference points.”
These reference points are chapter number and verse designations. While handy for locating text, they seem ‘out of place.” If God is “one,” duality cannot exist within Him, or manifestations of Him. Put more simply: “God cannot be cut into slices like a sweet potato pie simply because the whole is too large to swallow.”
Learning Greek and Hebrew is Non-sense
Since scripture defines “The Word as God,” it is logical to conclude that He and His Word, being one, cannot suffer separation and yet produce sound macros. Therefore, to divide His “Word” corrupts it although it is more “resource” useful.
Reading scripture without chapter or verse reference points presents a more satisfying experience. Admittedly, I have performed no scholarly research on this posit. However, I cannot imagine, for example, the Book of Job not being one extended “thought” absent these divisible barriers.
Even in its current form, Job’s elegance is overwhelming. When this is coupled with parsing of biblical linguistic demands, multiple veils further separate God from His people. Many theologians, scholars, and confused shepherds impose “Greek and Hebrew” as a doctrinal imperative to better understand God.
This non-sensical position imposes demands God never commanded. Interjection of the previously mentioned scriptural “divisibility” has done more damage than any linguistic barrier English presents.
Suggestions of multi-language proficiency as a predicate to enlightenment directly questions God’s revelatory sufficiency.
Both the linguistic event at the Tower of Babel and ‘Pentecost’ disprove insufficiency. Although far beyond the scope of this paper, those who impose such demands miss the obvious. At the Tower of Babel, God created multiple languages and did not translate while at Pentecost, those created languages were translated. If Greek and Hebrew are required for scriptural discernment, God has failed 7.38 BILLION non-speakers. True is Jesus’ statement: “these swallow a camel and strain at a gnat.”
Theologians Divide and Indivisible God
Further, I soundly “reject” any theology teaching one verse, chapter, or book can be viewed independent of any other.
The Bible is a “living organism” incapable of being explained without inclusiveness of every other part of its theological make-up. Genesis 1 is incomplete without John 1 and vice versa. Likewise, Lucifer’s story cannot be explained except through a nexus of Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14, and Genesis 3.
The macro view of Revelations demands it packaging with Daniel, and at minimum Matthew 24. Seeing God requires rejecting the arbiters of how we should and should not read scripture.
There is, of course, some validity to the notion false doctrine is preached without certain limitations being put on creative revelation. Point taken.
However, this does not mean previously unheard positions within a recently educated African American populace is bad doctrine.
Bible Teachers are Blinded by Horizonal Limitations
This paper is a result of challenges from otherwise reasonable people suffering horizonal limitations.
Yet, the same claim God as the arbiter “of the impossible.” The answer to the question put forward here is simple: “if one knows having confirmed, why should they still believe?” The Bible asks the same question which we will explore later.
Believing God is bound by current “theological” limitations rejects the very notion of “grace wrought through Jesus Christ.” God/Jesus Christ came to “fulfill that law” and establish a new covenant.
The Pharisees theological norms resulted in His execution because they could not accept there was theology that, although not new, they were unaware of. Horizonal limitations must be soundly rejected as unrighteous efforts to keep God’s people away from experiencing the “deeper mysteries of God.”
Finally, objections to these findings should be put into a document of response. If the arbiters of “sound theology” cannot express cogent written objections, they should not be taken seriously.
“That just doesn’t sound right to me” is insufficient, unsatisfying, and indicative of being yet unskilled in the Word.
To be colloquial correct: “we run our mouth really good but struggle with the pen and paper.” A modern-day follower of Jesus prepares themselves to offer serious objections. Error must be exposed by those so gifted to do so.
Unfortunately, those neither gifted nor equipped to respond authoritatively are the loudest voices in the room.
Their error must be forcefully resisted, and directly confronted by those who (in Spirit) “wear camel hair and eat wild locusts and honey.” He has given us sight not beholden to time through visions, dreams, prophetic utterance, advanced knowledge, confrontational preaching, and watching the sheep watchers.
It was a Prophet who announced: “how beautiful on the mountain are the feet of those who preach glad tidings of good thing.”
Let US walk in the authority to correct and confront error of “sheep watchers” yet be open to correction by others. We were not created to lead sheep watchers, only point them back to “The Way, the Truth, and the Life.”
Moses, the Prophet par Excellence, made what could have been a life ending request to God: “Allow me to see your glory.”
No flesh can see God and live, yet Moses asked anyway. On that wise, I submit: “Lord allow me to see over the horizon where mere mortals fear to gaze and may I remain a chronically disruptive in your Name.” Amen
Header Image Courtesy of Gerd Altmann @ Pixabay