In this article I outline seven (7) (really more) false teachings which make me mistrust theologians.
Don't Trust False Teachings in Commentaries
It is important to clarify that I am not someone unfamiliar with higher education. I have attended college and am preparing to begin a PhD in a year. One of my motivations for pursuing higher education was to see if it was as "fallen away" as reported.
Yes—it is. The introduction of a series of articles I wrote on "Jesus and Faith" sparked significant pushback.
Pastors, teachers, and theologians were offended that I dared to present, much less write a 'position paper,' on what you will read. I ask that you read the entire series before forming a judgment.
The method for presenting this material will be informal, particularly in formatting and citations. The research necessary to affirm these positions is limited in scope and extends no further than scripture and uncompartmentalized theology.
This was the introduction to a twenty-four-page paper I wrote on whether Jesus had faith. If Jesus is God (John 1:1-3), why would He need faith in God?
The Berean Approach
The Bereans went directly to the scriptures to validate or disprove what was being presented as truth. They were wise enough to treat even the Apostle Paul’s teachings as “additive commentary.” Moreover, Jesus’ sacrifice tore the veil of the temple, allowing personal access to Himself. He is described as the Word, so like the Bereans, we must walk through the veil into the presence of that Word, who is God.
I offer no scholarly articles, online commentaries, or theological journals as proof of this position. Too often, we seek resources that agree with us rather than challenging ourselves with differing perspectives. This trend is evident in the increasing preference for specific Bible translations.
Online commentaries are subject to both a Graeco-Western mindset and a Eurocentric bias. While these resources have value, they also contain errors. For instance, the concept of “original sin” ascribed to Adam and Eve is incorrect.
The Fallacy of Original Sin
Two sins occurred before Adam and Eve’s decision. First was Lucifer’s sin in Isaiah 14. Second was the serpent’s misuse of God’s Word in the seduction of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. Therefore, Adam and Eve committed the third sin. This doesn’t account for the unknown number of sins committed by the angels who followed Lucifer’s rebellion. The idea that this couple was the originator of sin must be soundly rejected. Any “scholarly” resource indicating otherwise should not be trusted.
The Google Quick Fix
Current biblical study seems less dependent on prayer and meditation and more on the “Google quick fix.” This approach has effectively replaced the torn veil of the temple with “search algorithms.” When it comes to religious commentaries, we have no positive affirmation that the men who wrote them were “moved to write as the Holy Spirit directed them to.” Let those who have ears, hear.
Compartmentalized norms are of no consideration here. Unveiled theology is the foundation—“a view of scripture without regard to finite time limits, writer, or reference points.”
The Problem with Chapter and Verse Designations
Chapter numbers and verse designations, while useful for locating text, seem out of place. If God is “one,” duality cannot exist within Him or manifestations of Him. Put more simply: “God cannot be cut into slices like a sweet potato pie simply because the whole is too large to swallow.”
Learning Greek and Hebrew is Nonsense
Since scripture defines “The Word as God,” it is logical to conclude that He and His Word, being one, cannot be separated and still produce sound doctrine. Therefore, dividing His “Word” corrupts it, even though it may be more useful as a resource.
Reading scripture without chapter or verse references presents a more satisfying experience.
While I have not performed scholarly research on this position, I cannot imagine, for example, the Book of Job being anything but an extended “thought” absent these divisible barriers.
Even in its current form, Job’s elegance is overwhelming. Parsing biblical linguistic demands into multiple veils further separates God from His people. Many theologians and scholars impose “Greek and Hebrew” as a doctrinal imperative to better understand God.
This nonsensical position imposes demands that God never commanded. The interjection of scriptural “divisibility” has done more damage than any linguistic barrier English presents.
Theologians Divide an Indivisible God
Further, and as a follower of the faith I soundly reject any theology that teaches one verse, chapter, or book can be viewed independently of any other. The Bible is a “living organism” that cannot be explained without the inclusiveness of every other part of its theological makeup. Genesis 1 is incomplete without John 1, and vice versa. Likewise, Lucifer’s story cannot be explained except through a nexus of Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14, and Genesis 3.
The macro view of Revelations demands it be packaged with Daniel and, at a minimum, Matthew 24. Seeing God requires rejecting the arbiters who dictate how we should and should not read scripture.
There is, of course, some validity to the notion that false doctrine can be preached without certain limitations on creative revelation. Point taken. However, this does not mean that previously unheard positions within a recently educated African American populace constitute bad doctrine.
Bible Teachers are Blinded by Horizontal Limitations
This paper is the result of challenges from otherwise reasonable people suffering from horizontal limitations. Yet, the same individuals claim God as the arbiter “of the impossible.” The answer to the question put forward here is simple: “If one knows having confirmed, why should they still believe?” The Bible asks the same question, which we will explore later.
Believing God is bound by current “theological” limitations rejects the very notion of “grace wrought through Jesus Christ.” God/Jesus Christ came to “fulfill that law” and establish a new covenant. The Pharisees’ theological norms resulted in His execution because they could not accept that there was theology they were unaware of, though it was not new. Horizontal limitations must be soundly rejected as unrighteous efforts to keep God’s people from experiencing the “deeper mysteries of God.”
Finally, objections to these findings should be presented in a document of response. If the arbiters of “sound theology” cannot express cogent written objections, they should not be taken seriously. “That just doesn’t sound right to me” is insufficient, unsatisfying, and indicative of being unskilled in the Word.
To be colloquially correct: “We run our mouth really well but struggle with the pen and paper.” A modern-day follower of Jesus prepares themselves to offer serious objections. Error must be exposed by those so gifted to do so. Unfortunately, those neither gifted nor equipped to respond authoritatively are often the loudest voices in the room.
Confronting Error with Authority
Their error must be forcefully resisted and directly confronted by those who, in Spirit, “wear camel hair and eat wild locusts and honey.” He has given us sight not beholden to time through visions, dreams, prophetic utterances, advanced knowledge, confrontational preaching, and watching the sheep watchers.
It was a prophet who announced: “How beautiful on the mountain are the feet of those who preach glad tidings of good things.” Let us walk in the authority to correct and confront the error of “sheep watchers” yet remain open to correction by others. We were not created to lead sheep watchers, only to point them back to “The Way, the Truth, and the Life.”
Moses, the Prophet par excellence, made what could have been a life-ending request to God: “Allow me to see your glory.” No flesh can see God and live, yet Moses asked anyway. On that note, I submit: “Lord, allow me to see over the horizon where mere mortals fear to gaze, and may I remain chronically disruptive in your Name.” Amen.
Comments