Theology - General Archives - Page 15 of 16

I’m beginning to scare myself.

Why?

Long-held doctrines that I’ve held unswervingly to for years are beginning to teeter in my mind.

I can’t decide if this is good or bad, but one thing is for sure…it’s making me more humble. (You know you’re humble when you can brag about it.)

The Subtle Shift in My Theology

I’ve been noticing this shift for a while, but I was bowled over by it this morning on my walk to work. I was listening to a message by Donald Miller, author of Blue Like Jazz and I found myself agreeing with nearly everything he said (He is a fantastic speaker, by the way).

I remembered the first time I was introduced to this book. It was about 5 years ago. I was the Senior Pastor of a church, and someone gave it to me and told me I must read it.

I got through twenty or thirty pages before I tossed it in the garbage can. Literally. I think his book is the only book I have ever thrown out. I have books on my shelves written by Muslims and Mormons, none of which I have thrown out. Miller’s book got thrown across the room as hard as I could and into the garbage can (True story!).

Now, I find myself laughing and agreeing with what he is saying.

What Happened to Me?

So I asked myself this morning, “What has happened to me in 5 years?!?”

Some would answer “You went to seminary.”

That might be true. Seminaries (sometimes) have a way of making heretics out of us all. But just as one person’s garbage is another person’s treasure, so also, one person’s heresy is another person’s cardinal doctrine.

It is just that I seem to have fewer and fewer cardinal doctrines. Several of my “Doctrines to die for” are no longer so important.

Fewer Doctrinal Hills to Die On

“What doctrines?” you ask?

Not the “core fundamentals” like the Trinity, the inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Jesus, and justification by faith alone in Christ alone. If I ever start to have misgivings these, please, somebody come kick me in the head…hard. I will defend these to my grave.

No, I am raising questions about various doctrines within ecclesiology, eschatology, angelology, and a few others.

How is this happening?

Some of these beliefs of mine are being undermined by the weight of exegesis. In other words, Bible study is making me doubt some of the theology I have been taught.

Below are a few areas I feel toppling.

Note that they haven’t toppled yet; they may right themselves, or like the Tower of Pisa, just lean over a bit. But I do not hold to these things as firmly as I once did.

I still believe these things to be true and biblical, but I am now aware of different ways of approaching these doctrines which require further study on my part.

My Current Leaning Towers of Pisa (why some might call me a heretic)

Here is my current list of doctrines which I am questioning, and which might cause some to label me as a heretic:

A literal, six-day-24-hour creation 6000 years ago. (Was Moses really writing a scientific treatise on how the universe began?)
“Messianic” prophecy in the Old Testament. (It’s not all about Jesus. But see #3 below).
Biblical Hermeneutics. (It’s all about Jesus, even the entire Old Testament.)
A future seven-year Tribulation. (Some of the passages which seem to teach this may not do so after all.)
Church. (The way we “do church” today is at best ineffective, and at worst, sinful.)
Eternal, conscious torment in hell. (I am NOT a universalist or an annihilationist. I’m just not sure hell=torture.)
The fall of Satan and his angels. (The Bible doesn’t seem to clearly talk about this.)

These are just a few of my own personal heresies.

Now you see why I have to go into church planting. There are not many churches in the country that would hire a pastor who has misgivings about this list of doctrines. (Are there any?)

The simple act of raising questions about these doctrines will probably cause some to brand me as a heretic.

In fact, in some churches and ministries, if I started to investigate alternative understandings for these doctrines, I’d probably get fired or cause a split.

…Maybe I should just sell cars or clean carpets…

2012 Update

As it turned out, I did get branded as a heretic. This post was written in December of 2007. Two months later, after some blog readers informed my boss I had written this post, I was fired from my job at a Christian publishing company.

And guess what? After months of searching for a job, I ended up cleaning carpets! I may be a heretic, but I am also prophetic! Kind of scary.

Here are some of the posts that explain more:

Eventually, I will write a book with chapters on each of the seven doctrinal areas above. Make sure you subscribe to the free email newsletter to get news, information, and a free copy of this book when it comes out.

Until then, what are your thoughts on any of the seven doctrines above which I had questions about? What do you think of branding people as heretics? Do you think a church or ministry should fire pastors and employees who begin to question their personal beliefs? Join the conversation below!

Shotgun Hermeneutics is not a Proper Bible Study Method

By Jeremy Myers

43 Comments

There is a tendency in many Christian circles to think that if a particular theological viewpoint can quote a lot of Scripture, it must be right.

For example, in a recent book defending The Five Points of Calvinism (by David Steele and Curtis Thomas), the authors seem to think that if they just quote Scripture, they have proved their point. For each of the five points, they provide a theological explanation for the point, and then “prove” it by citing numerous pages of Scriptural proof-texts, without ever attempting an explanation of any of those texts.

I recently listened to a debate from several years ago between Bob Wilkin and James White. James White used almost his entire opening statement to simply read Bible verses. The implication was that to prove Calvinism, all you have to do is read the Bible, and anybody is not a Calvinist, hasn’t read Scripture.

Shotgun Hermeneutics

I call this shotgun hermeneutics. Those who use this tactic try to “blow you away” by the sheer number of verses they can quote which they feel proves their point.

When you try to explain one or two of them to show that you are aware of these passages but have a different understanding, they will focus on all the other passages they quoted which you did not explain.

A Sample Conversation

In my discussions, the dialogue generally goes like this:

Calvinist: My view is right because of Passages A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J. If you would simply read and believe the Bible, you would agree with what God said.

Me: I have read and studied the Bible, and am aware of all of those passages you just quoted. I simply understand them in a different way. Let’s take the first one as an example. (I then proceed to explain Passage A.)

Calvinist: Well, that’s certainly a creative way to understand Passage A. But we know your interpretation is wrong, because of Passage B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J.

Me: I wasn’t trying to explain those passages, but again, I am aware of them, and all of them can be understood in a similar way as Passage A.

Calvinist: No, they can’t, because no one I’ve ever read has ever understood them that way. Here is what Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, and Calvin had to say about those passages. (They then proceed to quote their favorite authors.)

Me: But those are all Calvinistic authors. Of course they will agree with your interpretation.

Calvinist: Are you smarter or more godly than they are?

Me: No, of course not, but I do think…

Calvinist: Then since they all agree on what those passages mean, and there are so many passages that teach Calvinism, Calvinism is the truth. After all, what about Passages K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T?

Me: Yep. Those are all in the Bible.

Calvinist: Hah! I knew you would be silenced by the logic of my system and the irrefutable evidence of my many Scriptural proofs. To God be the glory!

Me: Well, I’m not really silenced, nor am I convinced …

Calvinist: That’s because you’re a depraved heretic.

Me: Oookaay … I gotta go. See ya later.

Calvinist: I’ll be praying for your soul that you would repent from your darkness and be brought into the light!

Theology Discussions

If you have ever tried to discuss theology with someone who holds strongly to a particular system of theology, you know that this is how many of these discussions go.

Recently, I have noticed this shotgun hermeneutics tactic being used by some who disagree with me on various other issues.

In their own blogs and in their comments on this blog, they seem to imply that I have not read the Bible, and that if I did, I would see the truth of their position. They argue that when they quote Scripture at me, I am silenced by the weight of Biblical evidence.

Yet when I attempt explanations of one or two passages they quoted, they say that my interpretation cannot be correct because of so many other Biblical passages which say something different, and furthermore, nobody they have ever read holds to my interpretation.

Then I get called a heretic.

A Proposal for Theological Debate

Shotgun hermeneutics and name calling is no way to proceed in theological discussion.

Shotgun hermeneutics isn’t even a proper method of hermeneutics. It’s actually a form of proof texting where dozens of passages are ripped out of context in order to prove a theological point.

So in order to really get somewhere in theological debate, the two sides must agree to discuss one passage at a time, and stick to it, camp upon it, walk around it, and work through it. Hopefully, you can both arrive at two or three possible interpretations of that one passage.

Only then can the two sides go to a second passage.

The same thing is done with passages A-Z.

Only when this entire process is complete can the two sides go back and reconsider all the evidence, in which any contradicting interpretations are discarded, and hopefully, only one possible interpretation remains.

Though this usually doesn’t happen, at least then you will understand each other rather than thinking the other side has never actually read the Bible.

My Exodus from Calvinism

The systematic verse-by-verse approach is what I used about 15 years ago to leave Calvinism.

In the early 1990’s, I was a five-point, hyper-Calvinist, Lordship Salvationist. Then, a good friend challenged my thinking on James 2:14-26. I camped on that passage for a few months. I saw that my friend’s interpretation was one possible understanding. However, I wanted to reject that view because “there are so many other passages that contradicted this understanding of James 2:14-26.”

In our conversations, my friend told me this: “Yes, it might be that my understanding of James 2:14-26 is wrong. That’s one option. Or maybe you are wrong in your understanding not just of James 2:14-26, but also in your understanding of all those others passages as well. How are you going to figure out which view makes the most sense? There is only one way: You need to study each passage individually.”

So that’s what I did. It took me about ten years, at the end of which time, every single point of Calvinism had fallen for me.

However, I still read books and articles by Calvinists and those who disagree with my views. Why? Because if I am wrong in my understanding of a particular passage, I want to know. I hope you do too.

So don’t practice shotgun hermeneutics. Such a practice is not beneficial since all it does is take aim at other people’s heads in an effort to blow them away.

And by the way, if you want to see some of the fruits of my labor from that 10-year study of various Bible passages, I am laying it all out for you in several of my online courses. The first course is done. It is titled “The Gospel According to Scripture.” I’m teaching and recording the second course right now. It is titled “The Gospel Dictionary.” A third course will come later, titled “Tough Texts on the Gospel.”

To take these courses, you need to be part of the RedeemingGod.com discipleship group. Go here to learn more and join us today.

Fun? Duh… Mental! (Fundamentalism)

By Jeremy Myers

14 Comments

I am a fundamentalist.

I am NOT a fundamentalist.

So which is it?

It depends on what you mean by “fundamentalist.”

History of Fundamentalism

The term “fundamentalist” was coined back in 1910 when the General Assembly of the Presbyterion Church decided to take a stand against encroaching liberal modernism and listed the “five fundamentals” of the faith:

The verbal inspiration (and inerrancy) of Scripture
The divinity of Jesus Christ
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ
Substitutionary atonement by Jesus
The bodily resurrection and future return of Jesus

They published booklets defining and defending these five points from Scripture. If you were in agreement with them on these things, you could call yourself a “Fundamentalist.” So, based on this definition, I suppose I am a fundamentalist. I firmly believe and teach all five of these fundamental truths.

But in the last thirty years or so, fundamentalism has come to include lots of other “non-negotiables.” A “fundamentalist” today must hold to certain views of women in ministry, the end times, abortion, creation vs. evolution, the method of baptism, dress code, drinking alcohol, gettting tattoos, style of music, playing cards, smoking, evangelistic methods, political involvement, etc.

So if this is how “fundamentalists” today are defined, I am not a fundamentalist. Sure, I am quite conservative in many of these areas, but in others, I would be considered “liberal” by some modern fundamentalists. So I am not a fundamentalist.

Encounters of the Fundamentalist Kind

Recently, I have had some personal and online interaction with some of these modern fundamentalists, and have realized that their name is quite descriptive.

First of all, many of them are not much FUN. Sour and dour describes them best. Always frowning. Always criticizing. Always telling you that unless you believe and act the same way they do, you are going to hell. They are not the kind of people who would feel comfortable around Jesus when He goes to parties, drinks, tells potty-humor jokes (yes, Jesus did this! – cf. Mark 7:15), and hangs out with prostitutes and sinners.

A second thing that characterizes modern fundamentalists is their method of argumentation, which is summed up in the word DUH. Modern fundamentalists have already made up their minds about the entire Bible, and when you try to explain that some of their favorite Bible-thumping passages have been ripped out of the cultural and Scriptural context in which they were written, the Fundamentalist acts as if you are the stupidest person on the earth for trying to understand a text this way.

When you ask why your interpretation is wrong, they innundate you with a list of other passages pulled out of context and numerous quotes from authors and pastors who agree with their position. They do not argue from exegesis and proper hermeneutics, but from tradition and citations of other authors.

All of this leads to the conclusion that many of them are MENTAL. They are like people in mental institutions who hold strange beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Their spittle-spewing rants and tirades are called “holy” because they are “defending God and His Word.” But in reality, they are mindlessly defending their own views and opinions and will not even consider the arguments of any who disagree. No matter how ridiculous their view is, they will not listen to even the most articulate, logical, and gracious arguments.

Are there practices and beliefs in our culture and among Christendom that need to be corrected? Of course, but not with hate, slander, and name-calling, but instead with grace, and speaking the truth in love.

So hold to the fundamentals, but don’t be a fundamentalist.

Thanks goes to ASBO Jesus for this cartoon.

You Be the Judge…(not really!)

By Jeremy Myers

57 Comments

I indicated in a previous comment that I would refrain from debating this gospel issue any more because none of us on either side are getting anywhere with the others, and I have better things to do. But in light of what I came across today, I am compelled to begin another post.

Besides, I guess public “debates” like this are not really for the debaters, but for those who are “on the fence” trying to understand and decide between the two positions. Even still, my follow-up comments to this post will be limited.

Following the attempts by some of the commenters (from both sides of the debate) to get simple “yes” and “no” answers from each other to theological questions, I have a REAL LIFE situation to pose to the readers of this blog, and I want you to state with a simple “Yes” or “No” whether you believe the following woman is saved or not.

Certainly, only God knows, but based on how you understand the Bible, the Gospel, how people are justified, and what she says, is the following woman justified, Yes or No?

And just so you know, I am not making this woman up. She is a REAL woman I encountered today. So give her the benefit of the doubt. If she says she really believes something, let’s assume she really does believe it.

She says she believes that:

Jesus is God… i.e., He is fully divine.
Jesus is fully human, yet without sin. Also, He was born of a virgin.
Jesus died on the cross and rose again from the dead three days later.
She is a sinner and needed Jesus to pay for her sin through His death on the cross so that she could gain His righteousness.
Simply by faith in Jesus, she has everlasting life which can never be lost.So far, all of us would vote a hearty “YES.” I know I do. But here is where it gets interesting. She also believes that:
Humans are “divine like Jesus, but to a lesser degree” becuase we sin.
God is Allah, the same god the Muslims worship.
The Trinity is fiction… there is only one God and He is not in three person.
The Qu’ran is inspired by God and is on equal footing with the Bible. Since the two are in conflict on some teachings, neither can be taken literally.

So, what is the verdict?

And here are the RULES for the comments on this post. YOU MUST, IN YOUR FIRST COMMENT, BEGIN WITH EITHER A “YES” OR A “NO.” Following your one-word answer, you may then explain your answer. Also, in subsequent comments, you do not need to begin those posts with your answer, unless you change you answer.

Obviously, none of us are the true judges of a person’s eternal destiny (Isn’t that a relief?), and the Gospel is not even primarily about where one will spend eternity, but this exercise is for the purpose of helping us think through what the Bible says about how to receive eternal life. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don’t go around judging people the way we are doing here on this post.

How I Evangelize

By Jeremy Myers

49 Comments

OK, the cat is out of the bag (I guess it was never in the bag)…The article I referred to in the previous post about the Crossless Gospel is indeed the one by Tom Stegall. But I am also now including Rokser’s “Two Clarifications” from the most recent issue of the “Grace Family Journal.”

It appears from Comments to my previous post that although Stegall is accusing various Free Grace writers and speakers of having a “Crossless Gospel,” what he really means is that we have “Crossless evangelism.” I see these two things as distinctly different since nobody ever shares the entire New Testament gospel when they evangelize. So the issue isn’t whether the cross is part of the gospel or not. Of course the cross is part of the gospel.

Instead, the issue seems to be, “Does a person need to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to receive eternal life?”

So to help clarify the debate, I thought it might help to share what I try to do when I evangelize…after all, this is what it is all about, right? Please note that I don’t exactly know what the evangelistic method is of Zane Hodges, Antonio DaRosa, or any of the other Free Grace people accused of teaching a “crossless gospel.” I do, however, know that the evangelistic practice I describe below closely resembles what Bob Wilkin does. I know this, becuase I work with him, and we have talked a lot about it. Even still, I am not speaking for him, but for myself alone.

Stegall’s Gospel Checklist

But before I get to my practice, it is probably best to begin with what Stegall says a person must believe to receive eternal life. If I remember correctly, Stegall has five things he says must be believed if a person is to be born again. These five things were not listed in his article, but I think I heard him list them in a talk he gave at the Annual Fall Conference at Duluth Bible Church. (So my memory may be wrong on these five…).

He says that for a person to be born again, they have to believe in:

The death, resurrection, and substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ.
The full humanity of Christ.
The full deity of Christ.
The sinfulness of man.
Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Technically, this is more than five, but I’m not going to quibble over that.

My question for Stegall is: “Why these five?”

What if a person believes all these five, but doesn’t believe in the virgin birth and believes that Jesus sinned? What if a person doesn’t believe in the Trinity, and instead is a modalist? What if they believe these five things, but believe that Jesus is “a god” just like the rest of us? What if they believe these five things, but don’t believe in life after death, and “salvation” is only a good life here and now?

Personally, I believe that the virgin birth, the sinlessness of Jesus, and the Trinity are all essential to the gospel, as well as numerous other truths. But do I expect a person to know and believe all of this in order to become a Christian? No. So I don’t have a “crossless gospel.” I have a gospel that includes all five elements Stegall includes, plus a bunch of other Scriptural truths that Stegall does not.

So the real issue is, “What do I share when I evangelize?” Right? Though not directly stated, it seems this is what people want to know. Here is how I evangelize.

How to Evangelize — No, this is NOT how I evangelize…

How I Evangelize

I share any truth of the gospel I think is necessary to get a person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life. All of the truths of the gospel either prepare a person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life, or prove that He can make good on His promise.

So, when I evangelize, I always begin with the gospel invitation and tell them that if they believe in Jesus, He guarantees them eternal life.

Then, I allow the convicting and drawing work of the Holy Spirit upon that person and their natural, logical questions to lead me into what other information about the gospel I might share. Most people, I find, already know and believe that Jesus was God, that He died on the cross for their sins, and that He rose again from the dead. Even most unbelievers believe this.

So generally, the conversation centers around how Jesus can guarantee eternal life to those who believe or how it can be only faith without works, or why a good person cannot get into heaven. This is when we get to Stegall’s five truths plus any of the other gospel truths that will convince the person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.

One time, I actually talked to a person in the United States who didn’t know who Jesus was. I was pretty amazed that they had never heard of Jesus, but went on to explain to them that He was God, who came to earth 2000 years ago, and lived a sinless life, yet died a painful death on a cross for the sins of the whole world. His resurrection three days later proved that His death was acceptable to God as the payment for our sin. We were able to have a long and lively discussion about the gospel and the offer of eternal life. The conversation naturally led to all of Stegall’s five points, plus several others. But even if the conversation is short, I have still expressed the bottom line gospel invitation.

Natural Conversational Evangelism

This, it seems, is the most natural and biblical way to evangelize. It’s what Jesus did. It’s what Paul and Peter did. I’m not trying to run through a checklist of ideas, which have no basis anywhere in Scripture, or in actual practice. I can’t find any place in Scripture where a person shares all five of Stegall’s points when evangelizing or defining the basics of the gospel. Even 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 10 don’t include all five of these truths. And when compared, those two passages don’t even include the same gospel truths. The truth is, I can’t find one Scriptural passage that includes all five of Stegall’s truths. He has to pick and choose from various passages to get his essential gospel truths, and these five seem pretty arbitrary.

He may accuse me of having a crossless gospel (which I don’t), but I can accuse him of having a cherry-picked gospel.

So what do I share?

When I evangelize, I share anything and everything I can in the time I have that I think will get the person to the point where they become persuaded that simply by faith alone in Jesus they have everlasting life.

Once, when I was a pastor in Montana, I was outside by my woodpile (we use wood to heat our houses in Montana) talking with a man about all of this, and he wasn’t persuaded. He said, “I just don’t know if all of this is true. If it is true, I wish God would just hit me over the head with a 2×4. Then I would believe it.”

I almost reached out and grabbed a 2×4 and whacked him on the head with it! If he said “Why did you do that?” I could have responded, “God told me to, and He wants to know if you’ll believe in Jesus for everlasting life now.” If I had done that, I would have called it the “2×4 gospel,” because not only did I share with him about his sin, the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I also got a 2×4 in there…all in an effort to get him to believe in Jesus for everlasting life.

The Heretic in Me

The Subtle Shift in My Theology

What Happened to Me?

Fewer Doctrinal Hills to Die On

My Current Leaning Towers of Pisa (why some might call me a heretic)

2012 Update

Shotgun Hermeneutics is not a Proper Bible Study Method

Shotgun Hermeneutics

A Sample Conversation

Theology Discussions

A Proposal for Theological Debate

My Exodus from Calvinism

Fun? Duh… Mental! (Fundamentalism)

History of Fundamentalism

Encounters of the Fundamentalist Kind

You Be the Judge…(not really!)

She says she believes that:

So, what is the verdict?

How I Evangelize

Stegall’s Gospel Checklist

How I Evangelize

Natural Conversational Evangelism

Theological Study Archives

Bible Study Archives

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!