I will not repeat those principles from Hermeneutics 101 which you can get from Bible School or your first year in Seminary. This is more about what really counts to make your interpretations make sense without too much jargon and without any ridiculous logic causing many Christians to be confused.
There are at least three important Truths or Assumptions when attempting to comprehend the things of God in Scripture without which the study of the Word will not make any sense or value:
Why do most fundamentalists find numerous "mysteries" or contradictions in Scripture? Mainly because they forget that God, the author of Scripture, is not only a logical God but more so, a RELATIONAL God. In fact, God created man for relationship. God's purpose of creation and project in history to to create a people of faith who will love him back the way he loves them. This is what the Bible calls The Kingdom of God or The Kingdom of Heaven.
Relationship also emphasizes that God is a person and NOT a force without passions or emotions. Many Christians got sucked into the short-of-heretical belief of the impassivity of God and are at a great loss in understanding why God gets angry, surprised, joyful, etc. In fact, God called himself JEALOUS in Exodus 34:14 (Deuteronomy 4:24; 5:9). The Bible even declares that God is affected by our afflictions (Isaiah 63:9). In fact, man can PROVOKE God to jealousy (Deuteronomy 32:16).The people who refuse to accept that God has the same emotions and passions as man, resort to the anthropomorphism catch-all jargon which in reality means nothing that has value to our knowledge of God. Like Karl Barth said, the only true anthropomorphism in Scripture is Jesus Christ Himself.
Relational analogy is as simple as analyzing any and all Scriptural God-man interactions using the analogy of man-man interactions in human relationships. There is nothing else, no secret code, no more, no less. God basically behaves in relationship very similar to how a friend or father or loved one behaves depending on how we deal with them.
Relational analogies are also useful in understanding the emotions, behavior and reactions of God. We need this in interpreting the emotional outbursts of God through the major prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. Of course we can apply that all throughout Scripture starting when God completed creation and was perfectly satisfied with his accomplishment and declared his work to be "good". Then we follow through at his great disappointment at Adam and Eve's fall and the indignation that led Him to curse his creation.
As of this writing President Duterte of the Philippines is under fire for his statement against the Philippine Roman Catholic concept of God, actually calling "this" God "stupid" and cussing him in public broadcast. I understand him completely, it is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as revealed in Scripture that he called stupid. What he declared as stupid was the Roman Catholic caricature of God as Sovereignly preordaining and controlling everything including every detail of the future. This is no different from the caricature painted by the Hyper-Calvinists and Islam. These are pagan concepts and not biblical concepts of God.
Sure, Duterte paraphrased the fall of man in the garden of Eden but even Satan quotes scripture to distort man's understanding of revelation. Satan attempted such distortion to Christ Incarnate Himself! So what do we expect? Indeed, what do you call a perfect God who creates a perfect creation and then creates another entity to destroy his own creation? It does look stupid, doesn't it. So anyone who believes otherwise has their head in the clouds and completely outside of reality. The problem here is not the God of the Bible but man's caricature of the God of the Bible due to ignorance or incomplete knowledge of the Word of God. Plain and simple! It behooves any theologian to come up with a framework that will make sense of ALL of God's revelation, and much of it involves relational analogies which clarify the intent of the words of Scripture.
Take the story of Gideon testing God in Judges 6. Why was it valid to question God? We know it is because God entertained Gideon. We see that the conversations were sincere from both parties. Gideon did not ignore the voice of God, neither did he treat God like a vending machine or some ethereal force in the universe. Gideon was having a genuine, bonafide conversation with God!!! That is what makes questioning God valid. Gideon just wanted to be sure, that he was not just dreaming. In fact, Gideon tested God twice AND God ENTERTAINED him. Moreover, God seemed to enjoy the conversation.
Word study in the Greek or Hebrew is ONLY meant to enrich the meaning of the context. Once the words change the meaning of the context of are interpreted apart from the context, you are on the path to a cultic or wrong interpretation.
Denominations like the Iglesia ni Cristo ( of the Arian heresy variety) in the Philippines are doubly guilty of this violation creating doctrines based only on word study and the word study is based on the King James English translation instead of the original languages. One good example is their ridiculous exegesis of Acts 2:36 in which they interpret the English word "made" as created, so their paraphrase reads, "God has created him both Lord and Christ" instead of "God has made him both Lord and Christ" in the translated version. Talk about grade school English...
Women in ministry or women as pastors is another good example of the misuse of word study. Complementarians win the argument based on plain word study. However, when we look at overriding principles like there is "neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28), the the gifts of the Spirit are NOT gender sensitive at all and therefore available to all (Joel 2:27-29 and Acts 2:16-18). You mean only young men will see visions and NOT young women? only old men will dream dreams and not old women? That is contradicted by experience throughout the church age!!! It definitely violates the Wesleyan quadrilateral which includes tradition and experience.
This principle quickly determines whether or not the Bible interpreter is majoring on the minors. And most people who do end up very cultic in their beliefs, again short of being heretical.
This simply talks about preponderance of related Scriptural passages to whatever Biblical subject is on the table. Where there is preponderance of Scripture, we call these the SHOUTS of God. Where there is a few of remarkably few passages that seem to state differently, we should consider these the WHISPERS of God. There are at least two glaring examples of this.
We know this principle. We even speak it often when reprimanding people whose speech are different from their actions or behavior. Since God is a relational God attempting to communicate with us, we need to apply the same principle to Scripture. What are God's words and what are his actions when it comes to the same subject?
We may openly declare the attributes of God as omnipotent (God is all-powerful), omnipresent (God is everywhere), omniscient (God is all-knowing). But take a look at the incarnate BABY Jesus! Did Jesus STOP being God when he was a baby? If not, according to orthodox belief, was the baby Jesus omniscient? Was he omnipresent, he was in Beijing China at the same time he was in the manger? Was he even omnipotent? How come Joseph had to put him and Mary on the back of a donkey to escape King Herod?
Actions speak louder than words! If our theology does not fit the facts AND we cannot come up with a rational, logical common sense explanation without all those theological jargon meant only for misled scholars, then we have to CHANGE or replace or revise our theology and/or theological framework. People who refuse to do so are not aware of the tremendous blessing they miss out on for unbelief in the clear word of God.
God is a very logical God and he uses nothing more than human logic. Why? He created it. If God had a different logic from ours, then revelation goes down the sewer. Tragically, even scholars forget this assumption in coming up with their theological conclusions.
A good example is the doctrine of the Elect from the Calvinist viewpoint. This is one source of their TULIP. It may have been a good Reformation response to the dark ages of Roman Catholicism but the way it has developed through the years and even after it was concocted has led to another inquisition. In fact, it was John Calvin who was solely responsible for the murder of Miguel Servetus, just because Servetus had a theology different from Calvin's. Calvin was guilty of majoring on the minors here. It makes one wonder whether Calvin was really protecting his reputation instead of his doctrine. Of course, if his doctrine fails the scrutiny of influential people, his reputation fails as well.
Assuming that the Calvinist concept of Election is true, what happens to evangelism? Calvinists almost unanimously declare that evangelism is an act of obedience to God although they are at a total loss as to why they even have to logically perform it. So we become like robots "trying to show" that we are performing something that is already predetermined? Does that even make any sense? Well perhaps its quid pro quo. Since god is a hypocrite anyway then we can also demonstrate hypocritical faith which would impress a less than intelligent god?
Moreover, if God has already determined who is saved and who is not in double predestination, what is any Christian's assurance that he is truly saved? If it is ALL left to God who is saved, how can anyone know God's mind? What if all these assurances of Scripture really do not mean a thing EVEN IF OUR UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT? Conclusively, all Calvinists are just assuming that they are saved for they have no objective assurance. Even if the word says you are saved by grace through faith, what if your faith is not genuine? How do you know it is genuine? The Bible's assurances of salvation will just be hints of salvation instead of objective truth, for it is left to the election of God as to who is really saved or not.
Calvinists have therefore painted a very illogical God. Such a poor caricature of God does not escape the scrutiny of those more open to taking God's WHOLE revelation more seriously than just bits and pieces of minor doctrine being turned into major doctrine. Let's not just use our mind. Let us LOVE GOD with ALL our MIND so the Holy Spirit can work unhindered in revealing the truths of God.
There are at least three important Truths or Assumptions when attempting to comprehend the things of God in Scripture without which the study of the Word will not make any sense or value:
- God is intelligent, logical. Hence, God CANNOT and WILL NOT contradict himself. Moreover, he created man to be intelligent and "most of the time" logical (hopefully). It is the devil's job to distort Scripture and man deteriorates to being illogical when it comes to what the Bible really says and means.
- God has the same logical thought process as those created in His image. If the Imago Dei is just about moral image, then God's creation is not as "good" as God declared at the creation. The Incarnation of Christ actually proves what I mean, God taking the form of man but using the same logic as God gave to man especially when he taught the parables or argued with the Pharisees. We are talking about logic alone and not intelligence nor wisdom of which Christ is far more superior in both. Logic, however, Christ applies EXACTLY the same logic as man, nothing more than that or his attempt at revelation fails utterly.
- What God has revealed in Scripture IS MEANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD CLEARLY. Otherwise, what is the point of revelation?
- God had an intended meaning when a specific book or chapter was written and he chose the right language at the perfect time in history to reveal his thoughts and will. We can ONLY interpret Scripture based on God's original intended meaning. Otherwise, our interpretation is man-made and may come from the adversary who distorts Scripture, steals, kills, or destroys.
Note: Remove any one of those four truths mentioned and Biblical hermeneutics goes down the way of the sewer.
The following sections below outline and explain hermeneutic principles which are often ignored to the Christian scholar's or Bible student's loss.
The following sections below outline and explain hermeneutic principles which are often ignored to the Christian scholar's or Bible student's loss.
Relational Analogy
Why do most fundamentalists find numerous "mysteries" or contradictions in Scripture? Mainly because they forget that God, the author of Scripture, is not only a logical God but more so, a RELATIONAL God. In fact, God created man for relationship. God's purpose of creation and project in history to to create a people of faith who will love him back the way he loves them. This is what the Bible calls The Kingdom of God or The Kingdom of Heaven.
Relationship also emphasizes that God is a person and NOT a force without passions or emotions. Many Christians got sucked into the short-of-heretical belief of the impassivity of God and are at a great loss in understanding why God gets angry, surprised, joyful, etc. In fact, God called himself JEALOUS in Exodus 34:14 (Deuteronomy 4:24; 5:9). The Bible even declares that God is affected by our afflictions (Isaiah 63:9). In fact, man can PROVOKE God to jealousy (Deuteronomy 32:16).The people who refuse to accept that God has the same emotions and passions as man, resort to the anthropomorphism catch-all jargon which in reality means nothing that has value to our knowledge of God. Like Karl Barth said, the only true anthropomorphism in Scripture is Jesus Christ Himself.
Relational analogy is as simple as analyzing any and all Scriptural God-man interactions using the analogy of man-man interactions in human relationships. There is nothing else, no secret code, no more, no less. God basically behaves in relationship very similar to how a friend or father or loved one behaves depending on how we deal with them.
Relational analogies are also useful in understanding the emotions, behavior and reactions of God. We need this in interpreting the emotional outbursts of God through the major prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. Of course we can apply that all throughout Scripture starting when God completed creation and was perfectly satisfied with his accomplishment and declared his work to be "good". Then we follow through at his great disappointment at Adam and Eve's fall and the indignation that led Him to curse his creation.
As of this writing President Duterte of the Philippines is under fire for his statement against the Philippine Roman Catholic concept of God, actually calling "this" God "stupid" and cussing him in public broadcast. I understand him completely, it is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as revealed in Scripture that he called stupid. What he declared as stupid was the Roman Catholic caricature of God as Sovereignly preordaining and controlling everything including every detail of the future. This is no different from the caricature painted by the Hyper-Calvinists and Islam. These are pagan concepts and not biblical concepts of God.
Sure, Duterte paraphrased the fall of man in the garden of Eden but even Satan quotes scripture to distort man's understanding of revelation. Satan attempted such distortion to Christ Incarnate Himself! So what do we expect? Indeed, what do you call a perfect God who creates a perfect creation and then creates another entity to destroy his own creation? It does look stupid, doesn't it. So anyone who believes otherwise has their head in the clouds and completely outside of reality. The problem here is not the God of the Bible but man's caricature of the God of the Bible due to ignorance or incomplete knowledge of the Word of God. Plain and simple! It behooves any theologian to come up with a framework that will make sense of ALL of God's revelation, and much of it involves relational analogies which clarify the intent of the words of Scripture.
Take the story of Gideon testing God in Judges 6. Why was it valid to question God? We know it is because God entertained Gideon. We see that the conversations were sincere from both parties. Gideon did not ignore the voice of God, neither did he treat God like a vending machine or some ethereal force in the universe. Gideon was having a genuine, bonafide conversation with God!!! That is what makes questioning God valid. Gideon just wanted to be sure, that he was not just dreaming. In fact, Gideon tested God twice AND God ENTERTAINED him. Moreover, God seemed to enjoy the conversation.
Context vs. Word Study
Word study in the Greek or Hebrew is ONLY meant to enrich the meaning of the context. Once the words change the meaning of the context of are interpreted apart from the context, you are on the path to a cultic or wrong interpretation.
Denominations like the Iglesia ni Cristo ( of the Arian heresy variety) in the Philippines are doubly guilty of this violation creating doctrines based only on word study and the word study is based on the King James English translation instead of the original languages. One good example is their ridiculous exegesis of Acts 2:36 in which they interpret the English word "made" as created, so their paraphrase reads, "God has created him both Lord and Christ" instead of "God has made him both Lord and Christ" in the translated version. Talk about grade school English...
Such chauvinistic interpretations also ignore the progress created by Christianity through the ages, women are NO LONGER living chattel, women have started to get education, women are now voting, women have many times proven to be more capable and intelligent than men in areas of medicine, leadership ( Meir, Margaret Thatcher), science, etc. So when we look at the bigger context and Wesley's quadrilateral, egalitarianism is the logical and correct conclusion to the Biblical stand on women in ministry. The opposite interpretation makes Chistianity look backward and obsolete and no different from the Muslim Sharia. My previous blogs are related to this subject, so we discuss only the hermeneutic issue here.
Other noteworthy word study without context anomalies are predestination, the elect, etc. Any scholar may analyze to death what proorizo means but the arguments for predeterminism are completely non sequitur. Furthermore, predeterminism effectively negates any other divine revelation or Bible study which redounds to our spiritual benefit or life transformation. Besides, predestination is a mere whisper compared to the free-will multitudinous passages of Scripture which are the SHOUTS of God.
On the lighter side, word study without context tends to mislead towards a questionable interpretation. For example, in Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives..." Does this mean that polygamy is always OK??? Well, the Greek for "wives" is actually plural! Ridiculous? Of course, but that is the way predestination, foreordination, foreknowledge is actually being exegeted by the main proponents!!! YES, word study without the context of the rest of Scripture!
On the lighter side, word study without context tends to mislead towards a questionable interpretation. For example, in Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives..." Does this mean that polygamy is always OK??? Well, the Greek for "wives" is actually plural! Ridiculous? Of course, but that is the way predestination, foreordination, foreknowledge is actually being exegeted by the main proponents!!! YES, word study without the context of the rest of Scripture!
Shouts vs. Whispers
This principle quickly determines whether or not the Bible interpreter is majoring on the minors. And most people who do end up very cultic in their beliefs, again short of being heretical.
This simply talks about preponderance of related Scriptural passages to whatever Biblical subject is on the table. Where there is preponderance of Scripture, we call these the SHOUTS of God. Where there is a few of remarkably few passages that seem to state differently, we should consider these the WHISPERS of God. There are at least two glaring examples of this.
First, the issue of whether or not a Christian can lose his salvation or not. There is a great preponderance of passages in both the Old and New Testaments that warn about losing of Salvation. In fact, this is the main theme of the Book of Hebrews. There are only a few passages, and also based on plain "word study without context", that a Christian can never lose his salvation. Well, common sense logic dictates that we have to interpret the whispers of God based on the shouts of God.
Second, and my Calvinist brothers are utterly guilty of this, is the subject of predestination vs. free-will. The Bible is replete with free will passages. On the other hand, predestination is mentioned ONLY in the New Testament two or three times. Furthermore, the conclusions derived have been based entirely on word study and not on context. So the Calvinist persuasion is listening to God's whispers and creating a whole doctrine out of this including parts of the TULIP thereby creating an utterly cultic interpretation of Scripture.
In fact the whole of the Calvinist TULIP is based on God's whispers and not shouts.
Other noteworthy whispers that contradict shouts are the relatively new myth of the the pre-tribulation rapture. The first century church could not even imagine that there was such a thing. They would even be totally shocked today to find "pre-trib rapture" Christians who are so eager to escape tribulation instead of dying for the gospel and the kingdom!!! So pre-trib rapture may offer consolation to modern day Christians but it certainly will NOT prepare their mindsets in the even it is NOT true (and I hermeneutically believe its just a myth) and they find out that all will go through the Great Tribulation. They are in danger of becoming too desperate if that happens and may even accept the mark of the Beast since they want relief from any form of trouble instead of the Biblical ethic of facing troubles with the victory of Christ.
When a theologian paints the whole Bible with a broad brush, he must be careful to initiate it from the shouts of God and not his whispers. For example, the election of Jeremiah to be a prophet from the womb is true ONLY for Jeremiah and NOT necessarily for all human beings. God hating Esau and loving Jacob is true ONLY for Esau and Jacob and NOT for all men. Otherwise, the concept contradicts the rest of Scripture and the broader concept of the whole of Scripture and the gospel. The tragedy of not heeding this principle can be seen in the concepts of Infralapsarianim and Supralapsarianism. Both are really terrible concepts because the premise for such categories is already faulty and based on a tiny whisper of God that he ordains or decrees everything. (This may be stated in Scripture but it is not articulated and interpreted correctly because this premise contradicts many examples also in Scripture which is why we go to the next principle where "actions speak louder than words".
In fact the whole of the Calvinist TULIP is based on God's whispers and not shouts.
Other noteworthy whispers that contradict shouts are the relatively new myth of the the pre-tribulation rapture. The first century church could not even imagine that there was such a thing. They would even be totally shocked today to find "pre-trib rapture" Christians who are so eager to escape tribulation instead of dying for the gospel and the kingdom!!! So pre-trib rapture may offer consolation to modern day Christians but it certainly will NOT prepare their mindsets in the even it is NOT true (and I hermeneutically believe its just a myth) and they find out that all will go through the Great Tribulation. They are in danger of becoming too desperate if that happens and may even accept the mark of the Beast since they want relief from any form of trouble instead of the Biblical ethic of facing troubles with the victory of Christ.
When a theologian paints the whole Bible with a broad brush, he must be careful to initiate it from the shouts of God and not his whispers. For example, the election of Jeremiah to be a prophet from the womb is true ONLY for Jeremiah and NOT necessarily for all human beings. God hating Esau and loving Jacob is true ONLY for Esau and Jacob and NOT for all men. Otherwise, the concept contradicts the rest of Scripture and the broader concept of the whole of Scripture and the gospel. The tragedy of not heeding this principle can be seen in the concepts of Infralapsarianim and Supralapsarianism. Both are really terrible concepts because the premise for such categories is already faulty and based on a tiny whisper of God that he ordains or decrees everything. (This may be stated in Scripture but it is not articulated and interpreted correctly because this premise contradicts many examples also in Scripture which is why we go to the next principle where "actions speak louder than words".
Actions Speak Louder than Words
We know this principle. We even speak it often when reprimanding people whose speech are different from their actions or behavior. Since God is a relational God attempting to communicate with us, we need to apply the same principle to Scripture. What are God's words and what are his actions when it comes to the same subject?
We may openly declare the attributes of God as omnipotent (God is all-powerful), omnipresent (God is everywhere), omniscient (God is all-knowing). But take a look at the incarnate BABY Jesus! Did Jesus STOP being God when he was a baby? If not, according to orthodox belief, was the baby Jesus omniscient? Was he omnipresent, he was in Beijing China at the same time he was in the manger? Was he even omnipotent? How come Joseph had to put him and Mary on the back of a donkey to escape King Herod?
Actions speak louder than words! If our theology does not fit the facts AND we cannot come up with a rational, logical common sense explanation without all those theological jargon meant only for misled scholars, then we have to CHANGE or replace or revise our theology and/or theological framework. People who refuse to do so are not aware of the tremendous blessing they miss out on for unbelief in the clear word of God.
Does God know ALL of the future? It seems comforting to believe a God who knows "the end from the beginning" ( an actual misquote, Isaiah 46:10 says "declaring the end...", not "knowing the end..."). Basically the context simply means that what God plans, he will accomplish. Plain and simple common sense reading. There is no remotest hint that the verse means he knows every detail of the future. This is also an example of context first before word study and not the other way around.
The Bible is replete with examples that God is not as omniscient as we make him out to be. When Adam fell in the garden of Eden, God's first three recorded conversations in Genesis 3:9-11 negate the traditional concept of omniscience, "Where are you?", "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" If God was simply pretending NOT to know, can't we call him a hypocrite much in the same way that Duterte called the Roman Catholic caricature of God "stupid"?
How about the testing of Abraham for the sacrifice of Isaac? What about Job? If God knew that these people would pass the test and simply pretended, that's hypocritical! Furthermore, if God knew they would pass the test but still subjected them to the agony of these tests, isn't God SADISTIC? That destroys the Bible concept of God. It does NOT destroy the image of the Sovereignty of God but it CERTAINLY DESTROYS the image of the God of LOVE!!! And either God is GENUINE LOVE or he is NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and he is NOT my god.
How about the two debates of Moses and God in Exodus 32 and Numbers 14 in which Moses WON BOTH DEBATES? We have only two choice conclusions here. Either God truly did not know the outcome of those conversations or God is a hypocrite and just wanted to boast in Holy Writ how omniscient he is even if he comes out a hypocrite? We have to pay attention to the caricatures of God that we paint for ourselves. If it turns out to be inconsistent with the Biblical revelation of who God truly is, then we are CREATING AN IDOL FOR OURSELVES, nothing more, nothing less.
You may memorize and shout all you want your doctrine which declares that God knows all and every detail of the future but that is still NOT biblical and you could be painting a wrong caricature of God and God really hates idolatry.
Another case are the lies of Abraham to Pharaoh and Abimelech (Genesis 20) to protect his life and the lying of Isaac against Abimelech (Genesis 26). In ALL cases, the liar was not reprimanded nor censured by God and in ALL cases the one lied to is reprimanded by God directly speaking to them. In fact, in Abraham's case, God cursed Abimelech's people until Abraham, the liar, prayed for Abimelech! We know that Scripture has many passages that condemn lies or lying. However, the kind of lies or lying has to be qualified in terms of Biblical evidence where actions speak louder than words. NOT all lies are sins against God. This principle justifies the Corie Ten Booms of this world.
This heremeneutic principle could also be the best resolution to the nature of Christ Jesus being fully God and fully man. Jesus was fully God because the evidence is clear. Jesus is fully man because the evidence is clear. How the two natures can merge in one individual is a moot point. Our interest should be more functional than physiological or ontological unless such knowledge adds value to our faith.
The Bible is replete with examples that God is not as omniscient as we make him out to be. When Adam fell in the garden of Eden, God's first three recorded conversations in Genesis 3:9-11 negate the traditional concept of omniscience, "Where are you?", "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" If God was simply pretending NOT to know, can't we call him a hypocrite much in the same way that Duterte called the Roman Catholic caricature of God "stupid"?
How about the testing of Abraham for the sacrifice of Isaac? What about Job? If God knew that these people would pass the test and simply pretended, that's hypocritical! Furthermore, if God knew they would pass the test but still subjected them to the agony of these tests, isn't God SADISTIC? That destroys the Bible concept of God. It does NOT destroy the image of the Sovereignty of God but it CERTAINLY DESTROYS the image of the God of LOVE!!! And either God is GENUINE LOVE or he is NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and he is NOT my god.
How about the two debates of Moses and God in Exodus 32 and Numbers 14 in which Moses WON BOTH DEBATES? We have only two choice conclusions here. Either God truly did not know the outcome of those conversations or God is a hypocrite and just wanted to boast in Holy Writ how omniscient he is even if he comes out a hypocrite? We have to pay attention to the caricatures of God that we paint for ourselves. If it turns out to be inconsistent with the Biblical revelation of who God truly is, then we are CREATING AN IDOL FOR OURSELVES, nothing more, nothing less.
You may memorize and shout all you want your doctrine which declares that God knows all and every detail of the future but that is still NOT biblical and you could be painting a wrong caricature of God and God really hates idolatry.
Another case are the lies of Abraham to Pharaoh and Abimelech (Genesis 20) to protect his life and the lying of Isaac against Abimelech (Genesis 26). In ALL cases, the liar was not reprimanded nor censured by God and in ALL cases the one lied to is reprimanded by God directly speaking to them. In fact, in Abraham's case, God cursed Abimelech's people until Abraham, the liar, prayed for Abimelech! We know that Scripture has many passages that condemn lies or lying. However, the kind of lies or lying has to be qualified in terms of Biblical evidence where actions speak louder than words. NOT all lies are sins against God. This principle justifies the Corie Ten Booms of this world.
This heremeneutic principle could also be the best resolution to the nature of Christ Jesus being fully God and fully man. Jesus was fully God because the evidence is clear. Jesus is fully man because the evidence is clear. How the two natures can merge in one individual is a moot point. Our interest should be more functional than physiological or ontological unless such knowledge adds value to our faith.
God's Logic is common sense logic, nothing special
God is a very logical God and he uses nothing more than human logic. Why? He created it. If God had a different logic from ours, then revelation goes down the sewer. Tragically, even scholars forget this assumption in coming up with their theological conclusions.
A good example is the doctrine of the Elect from the Calvinist viewpoint. This is one source of their TULIP. It may have been a good Reformation response to the dark ages of Roman Catholicism but the way it has developed through the years and even after it was concocted has led to another inquisition. In fact, it was John Calvin who was solely responsible for the murder of Miguel Servetus, just because Servetus had a theology different from Calvin's. Calvin was guilty of majoring on the minors here. It makes one wonder whether Calvin was really protecting his reputation instead of his doctrine. Of course, if his doctrine fails the scrutiny of influential people, his reputation fails as well.
Assuming that the Calvinist concept of Election is true, what happens to evangelism? Calvinists almost unanimously declare that evangelism is an act of obedience to God although they are at a total loss as to why they even have to logically perform it. So we become like robots "trying to show" that we are performing something that is already predetermined? Does that even make any sense? Well perhaps its quid pro quo. Since god is a hypocrite anyway then we can also demonstrate hypocritical faith which would impress a less than intelligent god?
Moreover, if God has already determined who is saved and who is not in double predestination, what is any Christian's assurance that he is truly saved? If it is ALL left to God who is saved, how can anyone know God's mind? What if all these assurances of Scripture really do not mean a thing EVEN IF OUR UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT? Conclusively, all Calvinists are just assuming that they are saved for they have no objective assurance. Even if the word says you are saved by grace through faith, what if your faith is not genuine? How do you know it is genuine? The Bible's assurances of salvation will just be hints of salvation instead of objective truth, for it is left to the election of God as to who is really saved or not.
Calvinists have therefore painted a very illogical God. Such a poor caricature of God does not escape the scrutiny of those more open to taking God's WHOLE revelation more seriously than just bits and pieces of minor doctrine being turned into major doctrine. Let's not just use our mind. Let us LOVE GOD with ALL our MIND so the Holy Spirit can work unhindered in revealing the truths of God.
How about the predeterminism of a sovereign God? What happens to prayer? Jesus Christ himself and St. Paul talked a lot about supplication and persistent prayer. What is the point of persistence in supplication if God already set the future by preordination? Does that change anything? Calvinists again come back to say that we pray out of obedience. So what this really means is that even pretentious or even hypocritical prayers are OK as long as it is done in obedience. Anyway whether one's prayer is sincere or not does NOT CHANGE ANYTHING!!! Is their God even intelligent??? Perhaps Duterte is really correct in his theological assessment of doctrine.
Furthermore, what happens to the final judgment? If God has already predetermined salvation then, logically, it is GOD HIMSELF that should be judged!!! Man CANNOT be logically responsible in such a scenario. Common sense logic.
AND THESE DOCTRINES ARE A PRODUCT OF SCHOLARS??? AND THESE DOCTRINES ARE STILL SUPPORTED BY DOCTORATES IN THEOLOGY??? Anyone who swallows these teachings, I can sell you the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Long Beach at a 50% discount!!! All I can say is if they want to wallow in their ignorance then let their ignorance be bliss! A good heart does not necessarily substitute for a missing brain, even in the rare times that God will bless both.
As a final note, let us beware of delving into and being fixated by subjects in which the Lord has not given us sufficient revelation. Deuteronomy 29:29 gives the complete warning message against this, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." We need to focus on what is clearly revealed because these are meant to benefit us and to please God.
Jesus gave the same principle in John 9:2-4, "And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work."
Christ was basically saying, "Don't bother about trivialities, there are more important things to do".
So let's all go get to work!
Furthermore, what happens to the final judgment? If God has already predetermined salvation then, logically, it is GOD HIMSELF that should be judged!!! Man CANNOT be logically responsible in such a scenario. Common sense logic.
AND THESE DOCTRINES ARE A PRODUCT OF SCHOLARS??? AND THESE DOCTRINES ARE STILL SUPPORTED BY DOCTORATES IN THEOLOGY??? Anyone who swallows these teachings, I can sell you the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Long Beach at a 50% discount!!! All I can say is if they want to wallow in their ignorance then let their ignorance be bliss! A good heart does not necessarily substitute for a missing brain, even in the rare times that God will bless both.
Ignore the Minors
As a final note, let us beware of delving into and being fixated by subjects in which the Lord has not given us sufficient revelation. Deuteronomy 29:29 gives the complete warning message against this, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." We need to focus on what is clearly revealed because these are meant to benefit us and to please God.
Jesus gave the same principle in John 9:2-4, "And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work."
Christ was basically saying, "Don't bother about trivialities, there are more important things to do".
So let's all go get to work!
No comments:
Post a Comment