Lack of Theological Discipleship: Casualties by Friendly-Fire
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Thesis: We have the tendency, left without theological discipleship and accountability, to make God into who we think he ought to be. When that version of him fails, it is not as if the true version has failed, but only the version we created. Therefore, we have not really left God in a proper sense, but we have left the God we made. Sure, this God may be called “Jesus” and he may have died on a cross for our sins, but, for some people, these form secondary characteristics that are not foundational.
The lack of theological discipleship in the Church has created casualties by friendly-fire.
Let me explain.
The “My will be done” type of God named “Jesus”
Imagine a person who finds God through some sort of deathbed experience. They may have been terminally ill and then they pray to God for the first time in their lives. Suddenly, they are healed. Based upon this, they accept a version of God who heals when trouble comes. Ask and you shall receive—according to your will. Their theology may allow for the name “Jesus”, the atonement for sins, and a belief that Christ is God, but they only believe this because God healed them. But what happens if they never grow with regards to their understanding of who God is, his sovereignty to take a life or to spare a life, the ultimate hope of the resurrection, and many other foundational theological issues? What happens when their spouse gets sick or their child has cancer and their version of God does not come to the rescue? Often, these will become disillusioned and skeptical of the God who brought about the previous miracle. If their belief in God is based on his healing intervention according to their will, then this belief no longer has a basis. Therefore, God no longer has a basis.
The personal promise maker God named “Jesus”
My mother went through a theological disillusionment when my sister Angie committed suicide four years ago. She wanted so badly to be assured that Angie was going to be okay and that the depression would not ultimately take her life, so she read the Bible the way that she wanted to read it. She found a passage that, in her mind, said Angie was not going to kill herself. It was in the Psalms. The problem was that this passage said nothing about Angie and gave no promises concerning her life. But my mother was determined enough to find a garuntee to alleviate her fear. She trusted in God and “Took him at his word.” When Angie did take her life, my mother was totally disillusioned with God. She never left Christianity, but there was a version of God that failed her. This version did not exist. God had made no such promises and was not obligated to fulfill promises never made.
The “I am primarily concerned about your success and stability” God named “Jesus”
This is a very common type of God today, especially with the health and wealth Gospel. The health and wealth Gospel essentially creates a God named “Jesus” who died on the cross, but who’s primary purpose in existence is to make sure all the bills are paid and everyone in your family is healthy, including you. Pain and suffering and financial troubles are a sign that you do not have enough faith. This type of God lives and breaths to make you successful and stable. Yet this is not the God of the Bible either. When you do suffer, when the bills cannot be paid, does God fail or simply your version of him?
The “I am about your glory” God named “Jesus”
Although this is a variation of the others, often we create God in such a way that he is concerned only about you and your temporal gain, whatever that may be. I see this often. Sadly, I have seen this from ministers who are being trained for ministry. It was about them and their success. It did not matter whether it was the success of their ministry or their overcoming temptation. God was about prioritizing their glory. When their glory was not attained, where do they go? Their verion of God failed and they seek glory elsewhere.
The “Jesus” who said the world was flat
There are also those who accept Christianity based upon false requirements for Christianity to be true. For example, there are some who believe and teach that if you don’t believe in the pre-tribulationist rapture of the church, you are not a Christian. Others believe that the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope is central to the Christian faith. Some believe and teach that true Christians will not ever struggle with homosexuality. And we all know the story of institutionalized Christianity who said that the earth was the center of the universe and anathematized any who would dare to disagree. At one time Christians all believed the earth was flat. This form of legalism creates dogmatic boundaries that are unbiblical and become part of the Christianity that people often accept. But what happens when a person does continue to struggle with homosexuality? What happens when they are convinced by a college professor that there is a historical error in the Bible? What happens when the Pope says something wrong? What happens when Galileo’s telescope indicates that the earth is not the center? What happens when we discover the earth is not flat? They can either surrender their intellectual integrity and believe according to these “Christian” boundaries (cognitive dissonance), or they can find another option besides Christianity.
The problem is that these versions of Christianity do not represent true Christianity. If they leave, did they really leave Christ or the version that their bad theology provided.
My question is this: If we allow people to remain undiscipled “Christians,” what do we expect? Are we about making disciples or making converts? If we continue in the same vain, we should expect more disillusionment, more doubt, and more leavers.
We must teach people that God is God, his promises are his prerogative, and we do not dare add to his requirements for Christianity. We must get back to theological discipleship.
In summary, the church needs to look long and hard at its current Gospel discharge methods and see that the lack of intellectual viability presented and the bad theology allowed, form the bed that we have made. From a human perspecive, we may be suffering such loses due to friendly-fire. We need to make sure that if people are leaving Christianity, they are not doing so for all the wrong reasons.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- Leaving Christianity for All the Wrong Reasons
- Leaving Christianity for all the Wrong Reasons
- Recommended: The ESV Study Bible
- She Died of Sadness
- Misled By Experience
Print This Post

Dr. Paul W. Foltz on 20 Jan 2009 at 3:47 am #
Any mental concept of what Jesus looks like or is, is an idol. He is not the longhaired effeminate that most picture Him to be. HE WAS A jEW, WITH NO PHYSICAL BEAUTY ABOUT HIM.
Also the scenarios you presented show forth an idol, a God of our making, and
fashioning. As you said we must return to ”What saith the Lord.”
Thank you for your excellent post.
Dr. Paul Foltz
Jason C on 20 Jan 2009 at 4:32 am #
Since Galileo was arguing about whether the Earth revolved around the sun, or vice versa, you’ve pitched out a strawman right there. Few, if any, orthodox teachers in the Church held that the Earth was flat and by Galileo’s day I doubt there was any discussion of the like at all. Planetary motion was a conflict between those who said we should believe the evidence of our own eyes, that the Sun does move across the heavens, and those who said we should favour the simpler mathematics of a heliocentric model. Of course since Galileo tried to fit planetary motion into circular orbits the model was no simpler at all.
Also Foltz’s view that Jesus had no physical beauty (I guess he hit every branch falling out of the ugly tree) is hardly a scriptural requirement. To say there was nothing particularly desirable about him suggests more that he was entirely average. Average height, average weight, average looks etc. Taking an example of scriptural hyperbole too far would suggest that even his teaching was not particularly attractive, which rather undermines his status as a teacher.
minnowspeaks on 20 Jan 2009 at 8:54 am #
For every example of a follower you can give who slipped and fell out the door because of a loose doctrine I can show you a believer outside the walls of the Church who is outside because the folks inside simply let him/her go. In other words I have found numerous example of people doing Christ-following away from the traditional venues for such because they find more relationship outside than in.
I do not want to bash intellectual pursuit or theological discipline. Obviously, a certain part of the Body is most drawn there. Perhaps they are the cerebral cortex or the Body while some other parts are the feet or the hands or the spleen. One of my questions is: Must we forever engage in a my Part is more necessary than your Part mentality? And another question is: after we cover God is God. We are not. Jesus was born, crucified and risen. Because the God who is, loved a sin-filled world–what else is essential? Maybe love God; love your neighbors. Or, feed my sheep. Or, do for the least of these. How about obey my commands or pick up your cross and follow me.
Scott Ferguson on 20 Jan 2009 at 9:10 am #
“it is not as if the true version has failed, but only the version we created. ”
There is a Unitarian minister who has encountered many atheists who, upon learning that he is a minister, present him with the fact that they don’t believe in God. His response is generally, “Oh really. Why don’t you describe your God to me. Chances are I don’t believe in him either.”
Markd on 20 Jan 2009 at 10:16 am #
It is of no suprise that a seditary and illiterate pagan society that we live in and go to church with would have failed to come to grips with the sound doctrines found in the Bible. I do believe that this phenomonem, as CMP observed, has been around for quite some time.
Pauls letter to the Galatians deals explicitly with the issue of doctrinal realities.
A question- In light of a history that is full of egregous doctrinal errors and the probability that nothing will really change in the future, does any of this really matter?
Scott Ferguson on 20 Jan 2009 at 10:26 am #
I have to agree that Dr Foltz is creating an idol of his own there. However, he and every other Christian are in a difficult position. This post implies that there is a proper – likely Calvinist
– theology that, if only these people knew it, would allow them to have a Christ that would never fail. Unfortunately the Bible is open to interpretation, passages can lead to contradictory conclusions and sincere scholars can differ in their theologies. No Christ created during the last 2000 years has been bulletproof. The first generation of Christians struggled. Paul dealt with what he saw as errant teachings all the time – even those emanating from Jesus’ disciples!
Lee Boswell on 20 Jan 2009 at 1:20 pm #
In the formation of the early church, new believers coming from a pagan background often adapted routines, celebrations and other rituals to fit their new-found faith. Their understanding of who God is had to be taught to them for it was foreign to them. To borrow from Paul, we need to tell them about the one they call the “Unknown God”. In addition to knowing the Almighty, we are to train up others in the faith. Every aspect of the faith should be a guided experience. This helps ensure continued growth and accurate understanding so that no one would become shipwrecked in their faith and led astray.
The practice of the early church is still present today. Our view of God comes from experiences we had since we were young and often needs to be corrected. Scripture is profitable for doctrine, correction, rebuke and instruction in righteousness.
I have known several who have difficulty viewing God as a loving Father because they cannot relate to it. Their earthly example was anything but loving. In the same way our understanding of doctrine is often skewed by precepts we learned before our faith in Christ began.
My mother, bless her heart, still mentions how we will “get our wings” when we get to heaven because it was an understanding she received early in her life (“It’s a Wonderful Life” is one of her favorite movies.).
Other examples are seen in the various forms of “Christianity” defined by CMP. Each culture worships as they have been taught, defines God as they have been influenced and views salvation by definition they formed over their pre-Christian years.
Whether discipled within the local body (the church) or one outside the “norm”, it is critical that we “disciple” believers. How will they know unless they hear?
Very thoughtful post CMP. Thanks.
Dr. Paul W. Foltz on 20 Jan 2009 at 1:55 pm #
iSAIAH 52 AND 53 SAYS CHRIST HAD NO PHYSICAL BEAUTY. tHE bIBLE SAYS WHAT IT MEANS, AND MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.
Jason C on 20 Jan 2009 at 2:06 pm #
Since Isaiah died about 500 years before Jesus was born it’s more likely that this was intended to be a hyperbolic description of Messiah after the experience of being whipped, beaten and sacrificed than an actual physical description of Jesus.
You really need to get the hang of something called the “Caps Lock” key. It’s on the left hand side of your keyboard.
Zach in Arizona on 20 Jan 2009 at 3:40 pm #
“Any mental concept of what Jesus looks like or is, is an idol.”
-Dr. Paul W. Foltz
My question for you would be, what if I were to picture Christ as a shepherd or a lamb? No opposition, just query.
But I will have to say that I think a tremendous lack of knowledge of the Law brings people to a misunderstanding of God and His nature. And isn’t it funny how a lot of Christians overlook the things that ARE promised in Scripture? Like persecution and tribulation?
Apostate2000 on 20 Jan 2009 at 9:23 pm #
CMP
I have to agree with you for the need for theological discipleship within the church. It would help, as you suggested, believers to refine their view of Christ and to avoid error.
But how is this to be done when it seems the vast majority of Christians and churches would balk at the very suggestion of an in depth discussion of theology or the differences of opinion within the church on various doctrines?
Most seem only to care about deepening their sincere yet mindless devotion to worship. To these an intellectual pursuit of God is a waste of time at best or blasphemy at worst.
Sorry to be so negative, but I moved into a new area about six months ago and have had some real problems finding a church
Laurie on 20 Jan 2009 at 10:58 pm #
A very helpful post. Before my conversion I believed in more than one of those
gods named “Jesus”.
I can also relate to the experience of #11. When I was a new believer I tried
to learn all I could and was discouraged, particularly from reading or listening
to anyone who wasn’t a part of the “movement” (their term instead of calling
themselves a denomination, which is essentially what they are). I was told I
shouldn’t listen to anyone else’s doctrine. I ran into ladies who would say
things like, “Oh, I don’t care about doctrine, I just love Jesus.” Good grief,
try telling your wife you love her to the ends of the earth, but don’t want to
hear a word from her mouth – or, even more to the point, imagine your wife
saying something like that to you.
Anyway, I’ve only recently happened upon this blog and have been
thoroughly enjoying it.
JC Lamont on 21 Jan 2009 at 12:14 am #
My goodness — how did a fight break out here? Come on people, we’re to love one another. It was Christ’s last request, which He reitereated over and over, at the last supper.
Dr. Foltz can think He is ugly
Jason can think He is average
And I will continue believing He looks just like Jim Caviezel, thank you very much.
Anyway, great blog post! We ALL are guilty of fashioning Jesus in our own likeness in one way or another.
Susan on 21 Jan 2009 at 1:32 am #
Minnow, Some people go to church hoping to get some strokes from others (even if they don’t see this in themselves). If they don’t feel like they have found the relationships they were hoping for, they leave. To say that there are many outside the church who are there because people inside simply let them go…..makes it sound as if those who choose to leave are right to blame those who remain, for their departure, if those inside don’t try to bring them back. That would be a rather self-centered mindset for a leaver to have. I think that the right mindset to have about church comes from a true desire to learn from God’s word, and to contribute to the body of Christ (God centered, and other-centered). It seems that those who leave always have gripes about those in the church. That isn’t grace-centered thinking…… it’s selfish thinking.
Michael listed the various Jesus’ people construct in their mind….. which leads to disillusionment. I think that we could make a similar list of what people expect from the church which will meet their needs, and when they aren’t getting it, they are equally disillusioned…. and leave.
Worshipping God, loving God, serving God, knowing God, proclaiming Christ to non-believers…. and helping others to do the same, would be a better aim for us as we join a body of believers.
Jason, LOL on your last comment!
Greg on 21 Jan 2009 at 3:08 am #
Dr. Paul W. Foltz,
The Bible says a lot of things.
The Bible helped Augustine figure out that nobody lived on the other side of the earth, the reformers and RCC that the earth was the center of the universe, and the literalists that everything is no more than six-thousand years old.
The Bible tells the Catholics the Pope is infallible. It tells the Baptists that alcohol, dancing, tattoos and Catholics are of the devil. It tells the charismatics you need the baptism of the holy spirit to be saved, the Arminians that you can lose your salvation, and the Calvinists you had no choice in the matter to begin with.
It tells some that Hell is literally real, or metaphorical, or eternal, or annihilationistic in its nature.
To some the Prayer of Jabez is all you need, for others, Joel Osteen. Some care only about health and wealth, while others moan and wale about their salvation. Many see only fire and brimstone in the Bible, while others see a sweet, all-loving grandfatherly God.
The Bible says a lot of things. Its not as easy as “The Bible says it, I believe, that settles it!
Its a lot more complicated than that when you really get down to it all.
JasonC,
Re: Comment #2
I don’t think CMP was conflating the two when he mentioned both in the same paragraph. It is possible that a theologian or two may have held to the idea of a “flat” earth, or at least it may have been a belief in the church.
The idea is there in scripture, and looking to the six-day creationists as an example, we can see how easily a group of people can cling to an idea regardless of the evidence against it.
Dr. Paul W. Foltz on 21 Jan 2009 at 5:21 am #
gREG;
A text taken out of its context can be used for anything.
You can make The Bible teach annything you want to, but you can’t change
what it says.
The book is written to those with spiritual discernment. You cannot with your
natural light undestand it.
Ask God to reveal it and Himself to you in it. All that God wants you to be,
know, and do is found in the Bible, YOU WILL neve understand it unless
you experience a spriritual birth.
Dr. Foltz
Solo on 21 Jan 2009 at 6:25 am #
let me start by saying. I love this post, and i love this blog its always so enlightening and spot on.
One of the biggest problems with Christians today and with most pulpit messages, it that we are being thought that “Christianity is about us” it’s about a loving and caring God dispatched to be at our service. READY AND WILLING TO DO WHATEVER WE COMMAND.
But really is that what the bible says? I think not. Christians need to understand that because God so loved the world he made a way for those who believe in him to escape the peril that will befall this world when his hour of judgment comes.
Christ is only loyal to his word and those who abide in it. Now if we know not that word in which we must abide where dose that leave us?
I am making a plea to all Christian teachers and pulpit communicators.
PLEASE LET US MOVE AWAY FROM THE MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKING AND FEEL GOOD MESSAGES THAT ARE BEING DELIVERED ON THE PULPITS TODAY AND RETURN TO THE GOSPEL THAT IS CHRIST
Dr. Paul W. Foltz on 21 Jan 2009 at 7:01 am #
Amen solo amen.
Salvation is knowing Jesus, and walking each day with Him.
Radical Legacy » Blog Archive » Theological Discipleship on 21 Jan 2009 at 7:44 am #
[...] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/01/lack-of-theological-discipleship-casualties-by-friendl... rick evans posted this entry on Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 at 7:44 am. Posted in the category Uncategorized You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site. [...]
Lack of theological discipleship: casualties by friendly fire | OrthoCuban on 21 Jan 2009 at 8:33 am #
[...] I seldom recommend a post without reservation, but I highly recommend the post that begins as quoted above. You can find the blog and the post here. [...]
minnowspeaks on 21 Jan 2009 at 8:54 am #
Susan I don’t care to steal CMP’s post so I won’t continue our comments except to say I have lots to say and perhaps CMP will write a different post where our discussion would be more appropriate.
Greg # 15 I dare say you prove CMP’s ppoint that the need to better understand what the Bible actually say exists but getting us all in the same classroom would be quite a feat.
CMP–Gregs comment does raise a good point–many are taught what the Bible says, some even by highly educated scholars, and we still do not all agree. Is the common ground enough to all call ourselves Christians? Is God so big and so multifaceted that we might each have enough of a piece of the picture to then turn around and witness to a dying world? Or do we really need to spend more time in class (and I’m not talking seminary or your program I’m talking Sunday mornings for those of us in the pews) dotting I’s and crossing T’s before we GO out of the building and to the ends of the world, even if it’s really only the end of our driveway!?!?
Bror Erickson on 21 Jan 2009 at 7:10 pm #
“Taking an example of scriptural hyperbole too far would suggest that even his teaching was not particularly attractive, which rather undermines his status as a teacher.”
I found this comment funny, being as the Bible says that his teaching is not particularly attractive, folly to the greek, stumbling block to the Jew, and all that. The man died for it and told us we would be persecuted for it. Nothing particularly attractive about “take up your cross and follow me.’
In any case I don’t think it matters much if I conceive of christ with a pockmarked face or not. But then we have to remember his new face is part of a glorified body, so it probably looks a little different than before the cross.
steve martin on 22 Jan 2009 at 12:16 am #
The God we have in Christ Jesus is not the god we want.
The God we have in Christ Jesus is trying to put an end to us and we just won’t have it.
We don’t want to die to self or any other way.
“But while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.”
We don’t want Him, But He wants us…His enemies.
Go figure.
Once people can get that fact through their thick skulls and hearts, then they can realize who and what they are, and more readily appreciate the true God that bled to death upon a cross for them.
Greg on 22 Jan 2009 at 9:43 am #
minnowspeaks,
I know the question was directed towards CMP, but I see common ground lying in our salvation and all being members of the body of Christ. Too often you have Christians telling other Christians they aren’t Christian because of a particular doctrine they believe in, or not being of a specific denomination. Protestants and Catholics come to mind.
As long as our understanding of salvation is correct, and we believe it, I think that is enough. While there still may be theological differences, I think it would be good for all of us to realize God thought it good to include us all in the body of Christ.
Greg on 22 Jan 2009 at 9:49 am #
Dr. Paul W. Foltz
I think you misunderstood me. I was not defending those beliefs or interpretations that I mentioned in my reply to you. Nor was I arguing for ambiguity in the Biblical witness.
My point was made here: The Bible says a lot of things. Its not as easy as ‘The Bible says it, I believe, that settles it!’ Its a lot more complicated than that when you really get down to it all.
Pithy little sayings like “The Bible says what it means and means what it says” just doesn’t work all the time. If what you say is true, and God is true to His word, than there would be a lot more agreement among the Church than there is now on all these huge doctrines that now divide us. It’s very easy, using your method, to get into the “everyone’s going to Hell but me” mentality.
What you said is more true when you change it to this: “The Bible says what it means to me and to me means what it says.”
Relying solely on the spiritual birth that you speak of to discern truth from scripture isn’t adequate because it is more or less subjective.
JC Lamont on 22 Jan 2009 at 9:55 am #
Greg said: As long as our understanding of salvation is correct, and we believe it, I think that is enough. While there still may be theological differences, I think it would be good for all of us to realize God thought it good to include us all in the body of Christ.
Amen!
Bror Erickson on 22 Jan 2009 at 1:11 pm #
“Greg said: As long as our understanding of salvation is correct, and we believe it, I think that is enough. While there still may be theological differences, I think it would be good for all of us to realize God thought it good to include us all in the body of Christ.
Amen!”
I don’t believe a correct understanding of salvation is actually needed to be saved. But I tend to believe espousing, preaching, teaching etc. is a very dangerous thing for the person doing it and the people who listen to him.
I’m with Paul when he puts the emphasis on being known by God as being a little more important than knowing God. Galatians 4:9 (ESV)
But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?
However I also understand when he tells Timothy to pay close attention to his teaching because by it he will save himself and those who hear him
So it is I believe a person with an improper view of salvation actually can be saved despite it. But I also believe false doctrine is toxic and has the effect of driving people away from Christ. So it should not be tolerated in the Church. False doctrine is a grave sin and a breaking of the second commandment (Lutheran numbering). It is not unforgivable, but dangerous nonetheless. And one who takes up to speak for Christ, ought to spend some time investigating his doctrine before he does so, and even while he is doing so. But here is the deal, no doctrine is an island. Eventually what we teach in one area effects what we teach in another area. It is all connected to the doctrine of salvation. It centers on it, which is why Lutheran’s say that justification is the article upon which the church stands or falls. False doctrine leads to false belief, despair and other great shame and vice.
JC Lamont on 22 Jan 2009 at 7:39 pm #
Bror,
Um, I was saying Amen to “While there still may be theological differences, I think it would be good for all of us to realize God thought it good to include us all in the body of Christ.”
I am all for loving and accepting Christians regardless of our theological differences. I think it’s horrible when Christians fight and get mean and start bickering over non-essentials.
Salvation is an essential. And I agree that false doctrine cannot be tolerated. I also agree that complete comprehension of the doctrine of soteriology is not necessary for salvation — not many Christians believe that, so I rarely mention it. If a person believes Jesus is God, and if Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, that person is saved (Acts 16:31 & Romans 10:9), even if they don’t realize it or realize that that, and that alone, is why they are saved.
Quick example — certain denominations are theologically conservative, bible-believing churches that believe you are saved because you believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (as God) and were baptized. Now, their baptism is a “work” and a required command of obedience, but as a work/deed, it does not save a person.
However, that they believe they needed to be baptized doesn’t then negate their salvation. God’s not going to stand there and say, Nope sorry, glad you believed with your heart in my Son, confessed Him with your mouth to your mocking co-workers, and lived according to the beatitudes, but you added baptism to salvation, so go to hell for all eternity.”
(And hopefully I’m right, and baptism isn’t necessary, because then you have the problem of the poor bloke who confessed with his mouth, and believed in his heart, but was killed in a car crash on the way to his baptismal service.)
But my point is, as Christians, we shouldn’t be fighting with them to stop adding baptism to salvation any more than they should fight with us to add it. We should unite to win the lost, or clothe the poor, or something relevant that allows Christ’s light to shine in the dark world through us, our deeds, and our love for all people — esp. other Christians.
That’s what I was saying “Amen” to — to not fighting.
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
In all things, charity.
roger e. olson on 23 Jan 2009 at 12:48 pm #
Doesn’t Genesis 1:26 state that when God was created, we spoke these words? “Let us create it in our image, in our likeness, …”
Since the Scriptures are no longer inspired, inerrant, unused, and undesired, wouldn’t that just be a natural outcome of fallen man? Seems to me that ambiguity is the “theologian’s” god today.
Essentials? Non-essentials? All things?
(If someone could send me the complete lists of these, I would be very grateful!)
There seems to no longer be any basis or grid for evaluation, it’s just Free Range Theology, (and I almost choke on calling it theology). Therefore the argument of “mine’s just as good as yours wins the day!
My undergrad degree is in biology (ology= the study of) Bio (earth). Perhaps I’m just ignorant, but following this same pattern, isn’t theology the study of God, or the things of God? An since there is but one God (capital G), wouldn’t that equate to the study of YHWH, Jesus, Holy Spirit? And therefore, wouldn’t THAT require input from Him? And didn’t He already reveal Himself in and through His Word, since no one has seen God at anytime?
Why are we not explaining God and the things of God (theology?) according to His Word? Shouldn’t that be the starting point? Shouldn’t these comments be flooded with Scripture?
Sorry about my ramblings, but I’m just a simple man. Well educated beyond my intelligence.
bethyada on 23 Jan 2009 at 2:42 pm #
At one time Christians all believed the earth was flat.
This is incorrect. I realise this doesn’t change the essence of your argument, that is:
Christianity isn’t dependant on a particular interpretation of the Bible
(Your statement that There are also those who accept Christianity based upon false requirements for Christianity to be true is poorly worded. Surely Christianity is true: God really does exist and Jesus really did come to earth and really did rise from the dead.)
But it is time to drop the “Jesus and Christians (in general) thought the earth was flat.” There is no good positive evidence that they did and very good positive evidence that the sphericity of the earth was known about centuries before Christ.
Flat-earth Christianity was specifically invented by atheists to try and discredit it.
steve martin on 23 Jan 2009 at 4:30 pm #
Of course there was a time when Christians believed the earth was flat.
That is exactly how the earth is described in Genesis.
Everyone believed the earth to be flat for thousands of years.
So what?
What does that have to do with the price of eggs in Alaska? (a Dadism from my childhood)
Greg on 24 Jan 2009 at 12:16 am #
JC Lamont, Re: #28
I agree completely.
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
In all things, charity.
Roger E. Olsen, Re: #29
By any chance, are you this Roger E. Olsen?
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=roger+olsen&x=0&y=0
Just wondering. But yeah, I certainly think all things theological in nature should be explained by His Word. I think we should do that with the best study, scholarship, conviction, and humility possible, to the best of our limited, fallible abilities.
And there lies the problem: Our fallibility. When you really get down to it, we’re all just really guessing. Not randomly of course. We have some pretty good ideas about the things of God. Some more than others. For example, regarding the essentials you mentioned, and my limited understanding of historical theology, the Church, in the vast majority of her incarnations throughout the ages, has agreed on three things: The sinful state of man, the need for salvation, and the way to that salvation.
We’re still guessing though. We’re pretty certain with our guess, enough to bet our eternal lives on it at least. At the same time, without a personal revelation or undeniable experience of the living God, such as Moses experienced, we have to take it all on faith. It always comes back down to that.
Faith that the Bible is God-inspired. Faith that Christ really was who He said He was. Faith that God even exists! We can’t even prove God’s existence in an undeniable fashion! We can come up with some pretty good reasons why we think He exists, but not enough to do away with faith.
I don’t like ambiguity in theology, but at the same time I can’t ignore it. I can’t ignore that really smart, spiritual and God-fearing men have, throughout church history, held to contradictory theologies on various things that fall outside the absolute essentials I mentioned.
It’s not that I don’t value correct doctrine, or the fight required for it. It’s just that there’s a reason why many things have yet to be settled even after two thousand years. We just don’t have all the information enough to solidly come down on some things with the same certainty we have on the above truths I mentioned.
We do explain God with His Word. But we are limited in our ability to explain those things which God has chosen not to adequately reveal.
That’s my guess at least
Greg on 24 Jan 2009 at 12:48 am #
“Flat-earth Christianity was specifically invented by atheists to try and discredit it.”
Bethyada, Re: #30
Maybe so, maybe no. As Steve Martin mentioned, the idea of a “flat” earth is presented in the Bible, simply because that’s how the people envisioned it back then. They’d go up onto a mountain top, look around, and see a round, disk-shaped earth. That’s all they knew, and God no where in His Word sought to obviously correct that understanding. I think any “scientific” statement in the Bible is best understood by the science of their day, not ours.
The cosmology presented in Genesis is incredibly similar to Egyptian and Babylonian cosmology. Not in its theology, just in its structure. Sometimes we like to think that the Israelites developed their culture and wrote the Bible in a vacuum, that there was no influence or sharing of ideas between others in that same era and geographical location.
I’ve noticed that Christians tend to try and explain this kind of stuff away so we can make the Bible conform to our modern understanding of science. We have this misplaced idea that to be reliable, the Bible needs to match our understanding of everything, or that if there’s some borrowed stuff from Babylon or Egypt that its any less inspired. We sometimes forget that the Bible was written for us, but not to us. God inspired in a manner that would be meaningful to ancient Israelites. He accommodated Himself to them by taking their cosmology and reinterpreting it in light of Himself.
Its really quite fascinating when you read Genesis with this in mind. You come across a whole mass of information and meaning that we moderns tend to overlook because we just don’t think that way anymore.
If you’d like to find out more about this, I’d recommend a lecture by John H. Walton on the subject here: http://www.logos.com/media/lecture/walton.mp3
bethyada on 24 Jan 2009 at 2:16 am #
Steve and Greg, though I (and Jason) raised this, I meant it as an aside. Not that I mind discussing the flat earth myth, but it is Michael’s thread not mine.
I have several comments and questions about your comments but I will leave them for the time being. I still hold to comment 30.
(Greg, I would look at a text link but am not interested in audio.)
Greg on 24 Jan 2009 at 9:35 am #
Bethyada,
I’ll add a comment to the link you posted to your blog in comment #30.
JC Lamont on 26 Jan 2009 at 10:56 am #
“…the idea of a “flat” earth is presented in the Bible…God no where in His Word sought to obviously correct that understanding.”
Isaiah 40:22 — He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth
steve martin on 26 Jan 2009 at 10:59 am #
A circle can be flat.
To say that people at the time the books of the bible were written should have known that the earth was not flat is well…you get my point.
Greg on 26 Jan 2009 at 9:13 pm #
JC Lamont
Re: #36
Ancient near eastern cosmology believed in a relatively flat, disk shaped earth. Israel was part of that culture too. They did not understand the world as a globe like we do.
Isaiah 40:22 fits their understanding very nicely. There’s no reason to resort to 21st century science to explain something that is better explained by the science of Isaiah’s day.
Bob Morley on 27 Jan 2009 at 8:45 am #
I had to leave the church so that I could find the true, objective Messiah. There is far too much in-bred anti-semitism to find the creator we call God or Jesus. And that is where it starts. God is a title used by pagans, and Jesus is a Greek word referencing Zeus. That is a bad start, and it get worse. The church was just handed this ancient package of pagan changes and continues to try to make them work. They DON’T. More and more people have this general sense of discomfort, and they don’t know why. They are starting to realize the emperor has no clothes, but they are surrounded by a throng applauding the fashion show. It made me crazy. When I left the church, I wanted to find a de-programmer or take a very, very hot shower for a month.
My advice is to stop starting with the conclusion. Every church takes a new comer, tells them a story and THEN shows them certain scripture to back it up. I am traveling the OTHER way: conclusions based on scripture. I have never had such a thrill in my life. It is soooo amazing to see the depth of scripture missed/misinterpreted by the church (The single best thing I ever did was to honor the Sabbath. Try it. You won’t believe it till you do.)
Write me and I will tell you the REAL story about the prodigal son.
C. Barton on 27 Jan 2009 at 3:48 pm #
I remember the tears, as a young boy, of bitter disappointment when I was refused the shiny new toy I wanted, and as it was wrenched out of my hands I knew that my parents were truly evil for denying me the satisfaction of . . .
Well, we can’t assess ourselves by ourselves because we are still so blind and immature compared with what shall be revealed when Christ returns.
Here’s a thought experiment: right now, are you awake? If yes, can you prove it? Of course, I would accept adequate proof, but to prove it to YOURSELF would be more arduous, right?
Do we have a self-centered faith or a God-centered faith? If life revolves around us, we might be asleep and yet not know it.
As for Jesus’ appearance, He did not come in the pomp and opulence of the religious rulers of His day, so that His earthly appearance would draw people to Him – whether or not He was “ugly” is in the eye of the beholder, no?