Could theologians get it wrong for 1800+ years?

I have raised several issues over the last year on this blog that would point to the fact that theologians actually got a lot wrong since the second century. This would raise the question found in the title line. Is that a reasonable question or, should the question really be…. Why would we think that theologians got it right? This is the point of this article.

Let’s look at it throughout the history of the biblical narrative. The history of the story is about six thousand years. For the first two thousand years people got it wrong. They chose idolatry. In fact, according to Jewish Tradition, Abraham was the son of a wicked priest and idol maker. Abraham’s call was evidence of the fact that for two thousand years of the biblical narrative men got it wrong.

The narrative continues with the family of Abraham culminating in the calling of Jacob/Israel.  The two hundred seventy year period of the active writing of the Prophets demonstrates that over time, Israel did not get it right. This is followed by John the Baptist and the Lord himself. Jesus taught his followers many corrective ideas from, who the Messiah was, what he would do, what his purpose was etc. He then inspired Paul et. al., to continue to correct ideas. He redefined the phrase word of God from Torah to himself and the gospel. The history is replete with theologians getting it wrong.  The scribes and Pharisees were some of the most learned, studious theologians that ever lived. Theology was their life from early childhood on.

Finally, we have prophecies that speak of the last days and the error that will ensue. Clearly, when the New Testament writers spoke of the last days and, the end of the age they were speaking and, writing of the times in which they lived. After all, they had been taught by the Pharisees that the end of the age and the age to come (Olam Ha Bah) was imminent.

Now when we fast forward to the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, it seems rather arrogant to believe that we somehow have it all right. Yet, this is the attitude of most evangelical leaning denominations and, while there is room for disagreement on what is called the non-essentials there is absolutely no room for disagreement on what has become known as orthodoxy. There are many things that could be debated and need to be explored with open honesty. Here are a few:

• The definition of the word of God
• Atonement theory
• Purpose of scripture
• Meaning of the end of the age
• Nature of the fall
• Humanities root problem
• The purpose of the cross
• God’s reason for creation

Opening up dialogue in these areas could be very beneficial to the future of Christianity.

The TLC special; Ted Haggard: Scandalous

I just watched the TLC special on Ted Haggard and his founding of St. James Church in Colorado Springs. From my view it was a really warm redemption story that was quite well done and I wish all the best to the Haggards and their new congregation. Anyone who has read this blog realizes that I advocate a solely redemptive purpose for the scripture; that I believe church doctrine and dogma is off base and, that I see loving transformation as the goal of redemption.

Ted and the St James Church appear to be striving to prove the love of God with their ministry and I am all for that. In watching this special I was freshly reminded of one of the major problems that Christianity faces today. There was a segment that showed Ted and Gayle going to Denver… I believe to be on the Joy Behar show by satellite. Joy ask Ted the following question; “where do you get the moral authority to preach?” This single question shows the glaring problem with Christianity as a whole. No one…. Let me repeat NO ONE except Jesus, has the moral authority to preach. Interestingly, he chose to love unconditionally and only preached at the self-righteous religious leaders.

I want to emphasize here that preach has a connotation today that was not included in the original mandate to proclaim/preach the gospel. Today the word preach evokes a thought of confronting and berating. The idea is that how can someone preach, encourage personal moral reformation when they exhibit that they lack it themselves?

In reality, those who would proclaim/preach the gospel should really be telling people that God is not angry. They should emphasize that He chose them in Christ before the foundation of the world Ephesians 1:4-6. This was God’s sole purpose in creation. He created humanity knowing that he would redeem them in Christ. This speaks of the great love that God has for people. This is where the emphasis should be placed.

We have shown over and over again with the posts of this blog that current Christian doctrine and dogma is way off the mark. It is really the leaven of the Pharisees; it is the strong delusion of 2 Thessalonians 2. This is precisely the reason that those outside of the church are as loving or more loving and tolerant than church members. I would argue that one of the reasons that so many from outside the church have been critical of Ted is based upon their erroneous view that was articulated by Joy Behar. They have bought into the idea that one who is to proclaim the gospel of Christ must have moral authority. I say that this flies in the face of the gospel message.

The one thing that I am pretty sure of is that Ted and Gayle will remember the judgmental hatred that they experienced by the church and will think good and long before acting in the same way. They will truly be able to treat others as they wished that they would have been treated.

The Wisdom of the world and the knowledge of good and evil

This blog project began in December of 2009 so a year has passed and the New Year is a blank page to be written on and, a blank canvas awaiting paint. The blog began as a result of a trip back to a Bible-Belt funeral. I was saddened by what I found to be the position of many of the attendees and speakers. I will write a blog post explaining exactly what saddens me later on this year. For the time however, I will simply recall that over the year I wrote many posts that fit into several different categories. The categories provided an alternate way; and equally valid way to look at the biblical narrative. In fact, I presented strong evidence that this was in fact the way that Jesus looked at the biblical narrative and likewise, the way that he taught his followers to look at it.

The categories are as follows:

• The scripture has a solely redemptive purpose
• The word of God was redefined to mean Jesus or the gospel
• The little apocalypses (Matt 24, Luke 21 and, Mark 13) were fulfilled in the first century
• The period between the cross and the destruction of the temple was the total transition from old covenant to new covenant
• The New Heaven and Earth are completely available now by faith
• Current church doctrine is the strong delusion of 2Thess 2

The beginning of this year will open the door for looking at how the knowledge of good and evil and, what Paul called the “wisdom of the world” are synonymous. One of the major problems that humanity faces is grounded in the knowledge of good and evil… the ability to judge. The problem resides in the fact that humans do not really know good from evil only God does.

Along the way last year, I stumbled on to a book called Discovering the God Imagination by Jonathan Brink which, provided an alternate atonement theory. This atonement theory fit very nicely with my paradigm shift. His premise is that at the time of creation God declared that humanity was good… in fact… very good (Gen 1:31.) When Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil they judged themselves evil and reasoned that God did not think they were good; in other words, they did not believe God’s original decree. Brink reasoned and, quite rightly, that with the knowledge of good and evil humanity chose to reason that it was evil. Use of the knowledge of good and evil drove a wedge between Adam and Eve and God. They could not be sure that God thought that they were good and therefore they reasoned that they were evil. This is the exact cause of the chasm between God and humanity and is thereby the root problem.

When speaking of humanities downward spiral, the Apostle Paul said that humanity, claiming to be wise became fools (Romans 1:22.) Original sin was in fact the act of not believing God in his proclamation that humanity was good. This is why sin is not acts per se but rather, unbelief and, likewise why faith is obedience. The obedience of faith is found throughout the entire biblical narrative.

The book every thoughtful Christian should read; Discovering the God Imagination by Jonathan Brink.

Seldom have I found a book that I would say everyone should read. After all, we are inundated with all kinds of books these days. People are busy with social media, blogs, podcasts and YouTube. Still, Discovering the God Imagination by Jonathan Brink is just such a book. The main reason that I think this book is so important is that it articulates an alternate atonement therory with cohesive precision. If you have ever been even slightly dissatisfied with the ransom theory, the penal substitution theory or, even the Christus Victor theory, this book is for you. Brink explains the source of the root problem of humanity; explains how it causes a downward spiral in human behavior and, exposes the lie that feeds the ego and, holds us captive to it. He demonstrates that redemption and the gospel is really good news indeed.

At every point, Brink shows an alterative way to understand the biblical narrative. In fact, he quotes more biblical passages than any book I have read in a long time and, helps make sense of the redemptive missio dei (mission of God.) He asks and answers the question what is the root problem being solved by the cross. His answer is that it is a lie we have told ourselves since the garden. God declared that we were created very good and, we allowed our use of the knowledge of good and evil to convince us that we are not as God sees us. The chasm is caused within each human being... we end up asking the basic question are we good or evil?

He writes...

“The root problem is located in us, as if this isn’t obvious by now. We are captive to the lie because we have agreed to it. I f we locate the problem in humanity, everything shifts. Everything changes. We can begin to describe the problem for what it is, a lie that captivates the human mind.

If we locate the problem in humanity, it liberates God from being deceptive or requiring violent responses. It liberates us from a victimization that allow us to sit on the sidelines, watching and waiting for God to respond. If we locate the problem in humanity it opens our eyes to the fact that we are the ones making the violent demands. We are the ones requiring the proof. The cross becomes a means to prove what always has and always will be true—humanity is qualitatively good regardless of our subjective judgments.”

In his view and, in mine also, the cross is necessary for us and not God. God created us good, declared it and we have used the knowledge of good and evil to contradict what God said. We therefore are the ones in need of redemption. We are the ones who need to have faith in the cure of the root problem. In other words, we are the ones who need to have our consciences cleansed once for all.

I have given but a small taste of what this book entails. As I stated it takes the entire biblical narrative and through examples offers a different (I think more correct) context. Read this book and get back to me. :)

What if the abomination of desolation already happened? Matthew 24:15

Mat 24:15 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),” This is Jesus’ warning about the abomination that makes desolate. He makes an interesting statement. He says, let the reader understand... which calls the readers... Matthew’s original audience (not us today), to realize that they must understand the prophecy of Daniel.

So the question that I would like to ask is this; does the abomination of desolation have to be one event or, could it be a series of events that begins with abomination and ends in desolation? Further, could Matthew 24:15 find its fulfillment in the time frame of the original audience of Matthews’s gospel? I think that the answer to both questions is a resounding yes indeed!

In order to see this more clearly it is necessary to look at a bible timeline. The bible timeline will show very clearly that God’s intervention into the timeline comes in very short bursts of activity relatively speaking. That is, when one looks at the time line in terms of thousands of years the activity takes place in a relatively short time. For example all of the Prophets prophesied in a time period that began in approximately 765BC and ended in 433BC which is a period of roughly 330 years. All of the prophecies for the day of the Lord came within this period.

According to Maccabees, (1Macc 1:57), Antiochus Epiphanes set up the abomination of desolation in the temple in 167BC. Then, history teaches us that Titus of Rome desolated the temple in 70AD. In other words, the prophecies of the 330 year period were completely fulfilled in a 237 year period from Antiochus to Titus; Antiochus was the abominator and Titus was the desolator. Daniel puts it this way: “And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." On the wing of abominations suggest that it is a prolonged period of time. There were indeed many abominations to the temple over this time period

This is no doubt why Jesus said let the reader understand. It was not going to be as obvious as the verbiage would suggest. No, it would take understanding on the part of the reader.... that is... the intended reader of Matthew’s gospel. This means it was targeted specifically to the Jewish believers. This explains why it is only found in Matthew’s account of the little apocalypse. It would only be understandable to the Jewish community that was expecting the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy in their time. It was to the group of Jewish believers that accepted Jesus as the Messiah and were fully aware of the time table of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy.... that were expecting the end of the age and the age to come imminently. We have shown time after time on this blog that the imminent expectation of the fulfillment of all prophecy is everywhere in every book of the New Testament.

Why the didache does not square with the New Covenant

As we explore the possibility that current Christianity is in fact the result of the fulfillment of the Prophecy by Paul in 2Thess 2:11 forecasting a great falling away and, the strong delusion that would follow. It is beneficial to consider one of the early documents of the church... late first century or early second century... it is the a document known as the didache or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the Nations (Gentiles.) If you read the document you will readily see that it appears to be a concise statement of church doctrine. In fact, I think that the doctrine of most evangelical churches would fall well within this document. There was a time in the early church that it was part of the scripture and a form of it is still canonical for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

However, when you examine it on a deeper level... while I admit that it is certainly an admirable standard of behavior and quite biblical at first blush... it is a written code set up for belief. This does not square with the New Covenant promises of Jeremiah 31:33-34 or Ezekiel 36:27. Likewise, it does not lend itself to the Spiritual transformation that is promised in the gospel. The main reason is that, while it states that love of God and neighbor are of first importance, it does not spend any time explaining the catalyst for producing this supernaturally, spiritually in the saint. This makes the didache no different than the Ten Commandments or the Torah. It merely becomes a written code that must be followed and does not provide the catalyst for obeying it.

We have suggested through out this blog that the catalyst for obedience is faith in God’s mercy, love and, grace. That is the first order of business and will produce love for God and each other when completely believed. This requires the obedience of faith. This requires a cleansed conscience. This requires one to be at peace with God by resting in his provision. This focuses on the importance of Hebrews, chapters three and four and, an understanding of the Sabbath Rest. In other words, one must be at peace with God from resting in his finished work. The didache does not even approach this concept. It is akin to the Sermon on the Mount which was spoken to Jews who were under the Law of Moses and served as an amplifier of the Law.

I am not suggesting that the SOTM is not a worthwhile goal. I am saying that if it was impossible for the Jews to be righteous under the law of Moses... how much more is it impossible for a Christian to be righteous under an even higher standard. Remember Jesus said that one should have a better righteousness than that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 5:20.) Paul stated that as a Pharisee, in the righteousness that was from the Law he was blameless (Phil 3:6.) I ask then... what righteousness can exceed blameless? The righteousness of God imputed for faith of course!

Look at the promises again; “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (27) I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.” Ezek 36:26-27 And... “I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (34) No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:33b-34.

The bottom line is that the transformation comes from believing the last part of Jeremiah 31:34, I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more. Grace and faith alone are the catalyst for the transformation. The didache can be informative in what the new creation will act like but, it will not create it. Only the gospel of grace and the finished work of Jesus can do that!

Schizophrenic preaching; schizophrenic Christianity

We looked at the concept of the “gospel but” in a recent post... it goes like this... Jesus paid it all “but” you must do this. The “do this” varies from person to person but, essentially it is the same concept with the same disastrous results. The “but” is always a fleshly action that can be accomplished by the believer. The person who is presenting the Jesus paid it all “but” message always tells the people that it is because Jesus paid it all and did it all that we are enabled to do whatever the “but” is. What is never explained is how Jesus does it for us exactly or, what the result of his enabling will be. In other words, the catalyst for our enabling is never explained.

The person hearing the message is always left with a question as to how this can be done. Unfortunately for most, when they are unable to perform whatever the “but” is they merely think that it is just them...wrong, let me let you in on a secret; the person giving the “gospel but” sermon doesn’t have a clue as to how Jesus will do it for him or her and they always feel inadequate also.... never satisfied.... never secure.... always presenting the gospel “but,” There are over nineteen volumes of the Talmud containing thousands of pages of writings. This was written down to explain the operation of obeying the Law of Moses. It took thousands of pages and at the end of the day there is no one way of interpretation.... that’s right, the rabbis simply do not agree. This by the way is likely what Jesus referred to when he spoke to the Pharisees about their traditions and the traditions of the fathers. Jesus on the other hand was able to explain this in just a few words. He spoke those in Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:38-40.

So then, what is it that the gospel is supposed to produce in the saint? The answer is love (the fruit of the Spirit.) It is not the “gospel but” this or that. It is simply the gospel and love. Oddly, the “gospel but” preaching does the opposite of producing love. It produces anger, fear, anxiety, despondency and resentment. This is precisely why the people of God, the saints are so doggone mean. This is the source of their angry judgmental attitudes. This is the source of their fear of never being quite acceptable... always thinking.... God did all that for me, how can I commit myself to him? So sad.

This all stems from a constitutional, legal reading of the scripture. The constitutional reading is forced by seeing the bible as the word of God and not just the Holy Scriptures. This is precisely why Jesus and his followers redefined the phrase word of God to mean the gospel or Jesus,the living gospel. Yet the constructional reading reigns. This is unfortunate because we have established many times in this blog that Jesus taught a redemptive focus to the scripture. He taught that the scripture was a narrative of redemption and God’s grace. He taught that God was abba (papa).

The truth is that faith in the gospel alone... without the “buts” produces in us a love for God and what’s more, peace with God. This is so important. This is reconciliation. Being reconciled to God is realizing that he is not mad at us... not expecting anything from us and, only desiring that we love him with all our heart, mind and, strength. We can only do this from resting in the peace he has provided; a peace that passes all understanding. We will NEVER see the true transformation of this world until we totally embrace the gospel without the “buts.”