The Heretic in Me

Jeremy,

When I read your list, my stomach began to turn, literally. I began to get sick in my stomach, literally.

I am very concerned about #’s 1, & 4 of your list.

I have had the benefit of living in town with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) since the day of my new birth. Many of the professors at the Southern California Seminary, have degrees from the graduate school at ICR. I have taken both biblical and scientific creation classes. I have read many books by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb and others. There is too much evidence for a very young earth.

I am saddened to see you teetering on premillennialism.

Thinking about you teetering on these well established doctrines really concerns me.

Recently a Free Grace brother changed his whole soteriology to include any and all works-salvationists who simply believe that Jesus is God.

All of this makes me want to divorce myself from people. I just don’t understand how people, who know better, will get wrapped up in so much error.

I take some hope that you are merely teetering and have not given them up.

Oh, and by the way, we will eventually be considering all of these items (and others) in the theology forums over at Free Grace Churches.

We will be looking at the exegetical evidence (or lack thereof) for these points, plus practical ramifications for discipleship that are involved. Come join the conversation!

I do think that a sic-day creation is taught in Genesis 1. But I think there is a gap between the first few verses, so there is an uncertain period of time in pre-history during which God’s kingdom was administered by angels.

I doubt that a gap can be used to explain alleged geological ages, but you never know. I do get a bit tired of the dogmatism and arrogance of some Six-Day Creationists. Their polemical use of humour shows a lack of humility.

“Church. (The way we “do church” today is at best ineffective, and possibly sinful.) ”

Yes, I think so.
Have you ever read the writings of JN Darby?

I believe the church is in ruins. No congregation today can truly claim to be a church.

You have a Baptist church, a Pentecostal church and a Methodist church in one town. Which one is the church? Can there be more than one church in a locality? That would mean Christ is divided.

Christians seem to think anybody can just form a group and call it a church.

It would be better to meet simply in homes and refrain from trying to appoint officers and call ourselves Such and Such Church

With regard to Satan, that depends on how one interprets Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14.

There are a lot of mysteries with regard to these things. I htink the mystery of it supports the view that it occurred before the creation week of Genesis 1 in pre-history.

I think there were two falls of angels. The fall of Satan and his angels, and the fall of the Sons of God in Genesis 6 who are now imprisoned.

It is good to re-examine our theology from time to time. But as Antonio, points out these issues are vitally important.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

Jeremy,

You said:

“my doctrines of ecclesiology, eschatology, angelology, and a few others are being undermined by the weight of exegesis.”

I think it would be helpful to us all if you cited some of this “weight of exegesis” that is leading you to change your position on these doctrines.

Rachel,

Wow. I must confess to you that I had you “pegged” completely different! I am sorry for that. My respect for you has just shot WAY up. It looks like you and I may have more in common than I previously thought. Ha ha.

I will definitely check out the links you have posted. That Tektonics site sounds wonderful.

Thanks for the reminder about there being churches out there who would hire me. I did go over the top with some hyperbole there. I tend to do that from time to time… Also, your reminder to not make “questioning traditional views” my god was very timely. Thank you.

Regarding the “Handbook of Social Values” book, I already own it, along with a few dozen others by Malina, Pilch, and deSilva. That website you mentioned about contexts sounds great. I think this field of social and cultural backgrounds to the Bible might be one of the most important areas of hermeneutics, and may be one of the most neglected. I am doing my Master’s thesis on the concepts of honor and shame as a primary social value of the NT world. The study is very eye opening, and has led to a different perspective on how I read the NT.

Anyway, I REALLY appreciate your comment. If it’s okay with you, I might venture back to your blog from time to time and continue the conversation…

Jeremy,

Nothing wrong with questioning the scriptures or doctrines either, the apostle Paul said for us to “examine all things; hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) John recorded Jesus’ praise to the Church in Ephesus, “You have even put to the test those who refer to themselves as apostles (but are not), and have discovered that they are false.” (Revelation 2:2) Then there is the example of the Berean’s in Acts 17. There are some other premier passages that bear on this process as in Acts 15 (mentioned earlier) and others that tell us to look and test and hold on to. In a very funny way the scientific community owes its method to God and the Bible.

On the other hand, Paul told Titus about Elders, “He must hold firmly to the faithful message as it has been taught, so that he will be able to give exhortation in such healthy teaching and correct those who speak against it.” (Titus 1:9) And for those under their authority, “stand firm and hold on to the traditions that we taught you, whether by speech or by letter.” (2 Thess 2:15) Even in the Old Testament Moses told the Israelites, “Be careful to do just as you are taught.” (Deuteronomy 17:10b).

Don’t get me wrong, your points are valid, the issue of creation for instance. One of the elders in the church that I was a fellow elder in invited a 6-day creationist to speak one Sunday. I talked to him before, and said that I respected his opinion but that there were another views just as valid and just as biblical. He said he would mention these. Afterwards, seeing some of the errors in his presentation I e-mailed him asking him if he realized that his word study of the Hebrew word for “day” was in error. It also occurred to me that he did not do the study himself but was parroting stuff out of books, not the bible. He never answered me so I asked the elders if I could present the other views and more likely what Moses was trying to convey which was not a literal 24 hour day but the greatness of God. To me a literal 24 hour day should not be a test of orthodoxy because we also have a thread of Natural Theology which includes science that has very heavy evidence that things are really that old. I still lean very much to a gap theory, but I don’t slam brothers and sisters who hold a different view.

Also, I have and still question the value of Seminary (I hope my professors and president don’t read this!). I believe that one of the reasons the local church is weak is because most believe that you have to be seminary trained to minister to others. I’m proof that isn’t true. I now go to seminary to acquire the things my pastors have said that I lack that they didn’t have time to provide me. In fact three of them at different churches (military doesn’t let you stick in one place for very long) said after getting to know me, looked at my library and said, “you have already put yourself through seminary, now all you need is the original languages and exegetical and homelitical work.” This is not word for word but each of them in essence said the same thing.

So I finish with this, test it, hold on to it if it good. Reject those things that do not pass the test, but keep an open mind as we all are being built up in our faith day by day.

Your brother,

Jim

Questioning is good — but be sure to seek answers from God’s word and godly people. Questioning too easily becomes a euphemism for disbelief.

Why question the literal 6-day interpretation? The simplest reading of the Genesis account yields that understanding.

You’re not, you say, making room for evolution … so why adopt something other than the simple interpretation?

Holding to evolution as the origin of the world and all that is therein makes good philosophical sense if and only if you reject the idea of a God … or even of gods. Holding to 6-day creationism makes good philosophical sense if you believe, as you insist, on Scriptural inerrancy.

A compromise really suits neither side. So … why? You feel science is not on the side of a 6-day interpretation and don’t want to be labeled a “flat-earther”? Read Ken Ham and some of the others from ICR. They’ve done a top-notch job on this.

Hell not equaling torture … again, why? “where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched” is not a place you’re going to urge anyone to go … so why argue it’s not quite as bad a place as Dante and the old-time preachers told us?

Jeremy,

You said to Jonathan,

“Since I always try to study all sides of a passage, I have seen that there are compelling reasons to understand certain key texts in different ways. Eventually, I hope to present some of these ideas over at the new forum: Free Grace Churches. I may or may not discuss them here.”

I’m wondering, if you listed for us here the doctrines you are considering changing your mind on, why wouldn’t you discuss your ideas about them here as well? If you think there are some “compelling reasons” to change your views, then why wouldn’t you share them here, and others can see them and either change as well or possibly present “compelling” reasons from the other side? It does seem kind of like “hit-and-run” for you to post that you are considering changing on some major issues, but then potentially not give any reasons as to why.

The question has been raised, why did you post your potential changes-of-mind publicly? As I’ve noted, I am also considering changing on some of the points you listed, and while I’m not hiding that fact, I’m also not broadcasting it to everyone either. Perhaps your answer as to why you posted this will help explain why you might not post your reasons for changing.

Just for the record…

1. Even though I titled the article “The Heretic in Me” I do not think that if I were to end up believing any of the seven things I am questioning that I would be a heretic. All I meant was that some would consider me to be a heretic for holding such beliefs. As it turns out, some are calling me a heretic just for considering such beliefs. Gotta love “Christians.”

2. To my knowledge, niether Bob Wilkin nor Zane Hodges are considering changing their views on any of these seven doctrines. However, I do not think they would consider me a heretic for wanting to study such doctrines more closely in light of Scripture.

3. There are two primary reasons I am unable to discuss these seven doctrines here on this blog. First, I dislike theological debate among Christians. It tends to serve no purpose except making a bunch of Christians mad at each other, which in turn turns off unbelievers from Christianity. God is not glorified by such things. It’s a lose-lose-lose-lose situation.

Second, the weight of the Scriptural evidence which is causing me to question these doctrines would require several dozen posts for each doctrine. It would get very boring and technical. This sort of study requires theological journal level writitng, not short blog posts. If, once I arrive at some conclusions, I am able to succinctly post these conclusions and a few basic reasons for my decision, I may do that here. The forums at Free Grace Churches are set up so that individual books and passages can be discussed more easily. Though still not ideal for such a study, it would be easier to do it there in that setting than in a blog setting like this.

P.S. I tried to post a comment on another blog (one critical of me) that my plunge into “heretical liberalism” is worse than they think. The comment was blocked. What I wrote is that I am growing out my hair, and it almost covers my ears! So I guess it’s true: I must be a heretic after all.

Jeremy,

In response to your question…simply put: one or both would be wrong. If the Lord is very intentional in His Word as far as communicating a message to mankind, then there must be one correct answer to every doctrinal and interpretive issue. Granted, He has not made all clear to us, however, all doctrine has been clearly laid out such as the Gospel, Eternal Security, eschatology, the Christian life by grace, etc. A literal, normal hermeneutic coupled with a Christ-centered, grace-oriented approach will normally yield the proper interpretation. But if we look to what’s popular within Christendom or what do the “big players” think, we may very well be led astray…the Spirit uses logic and reason to bring us to the answers…but it must be supported by Scripture as a whole.

Bill

Jeremy,

I was just surfing over at de-Conversion and hopped a link from there to here. Just wanted to post a word of encouragement.

re: the question of what church would hire you… I think your questioning will make you far better equipped to be a pastor. You will be able to relate to, and suggest ideas to, average folks who ask questions like these all the time. I would far rather see a pastor who admits he doesn’t have all the answers than a pastor who thinks he knows it all.

Just about everything else I was going to say, your friend Rachel has already said (above)… so be encouraged, you are not alone.

From a politically independent Anglican middle-of-the-road evangelical seminary student sister in Christ,

Peg

Hmmm

All very interesting comments.

In regards to absolute truth, I believe in it absolutely. However, as Bill has said, I dont think that EVERYTHING is black and white. Somethings are relative and sometimes the Holy Spirit can speak to me about a particular passage and be saying something to me, while to someone else he may be saying something else. I guess in a ‘multi layered truth’ kind of a sense.

I must say one thing, as I read so many of these blogs regarding the church and christianity, so many of them are so intellectual, and to me often too intellectual. I think that the church has far more pressing and ‘simple’ concerns than a debate over premillenialism and the like.

I think that the church needs to be looking at “what does it mean to BE the church?” What is that sposed to look like in my day to day life? How does it affect the wider community around me? How should me being a christian affect my relationship with my next door neighbour? (whom right now I don’t even know – and feeling a little guilty about going off to India this weekend on a mission trip when I dont even know the guy next door?!!)

I’m as keen as anyone for a discussion about old earth/young earth (i’m a young earther for the record – at least I think I am But rather than all this constant intellectual bollix, let’s sort out some of these basic issues first. There are people within a 1km radius of me tonight who are being abused, starving, lonely, addicted, suicidal, hopeless, dying and going to hell (whatever it was that Jesus ‘saved’ me from . And I’m not writing from India, I’m writing from Australia.

My point being…we (the church) have bigger fish to fry and just wonder if we really have time for what seems to be intellectual irrelevant BS?

Or it could be just me.

I came home from work today to find some strange e-mails in my inbox… which makes me think I need another clarification comment about this post. So, for those who are wondering…

I have not rejected the traditional, evangelical, dispensational explanations for any one of the seven doctrines stated above. I said this both at the beginning and the end of my post, but people seem to be skimming over that and writing me some “nice Christian emails” about my slide into heresy.

All I am doing is investigating some exegetical evidence that has recently been brought to my attention regarding these seven areas of doctrine. If you think it is wrong to question such things, then that is where we disagree.

In fact, some who are upset at me are my friends within Free Grace theology. Ironically, the only reason I am “Free Grace” today is because I was willing to consider exegetical evidence for a view that was contrary to what I had held and been taught my entire life. If I lived under the idea that it was wrong to question what I have always believed, I would still be a five-point-hyper-Calvinistic proponent of Lordship Salvation today.

Also, based on one or two of the emails I received, it looks like some people may be trying to get me fired. Come on…really? Do you really want me to lose my job just because I have some questions about my beliefs? I am aghast that someone can even think this way! Doesn’t the whole process of growing in the knowledge of Jesus and Scripture require that we regularly question and challenge what we believe?

Sure, I know that if I were to reject two or three certain doctrines listed above that they would be at odds with the doctrinal statement of the Grace Evangelical Society. But I have not rejected them. And if I were to reject any of them, I have enough integrity to leave quietly on my own.

I am nowhere near the caliber of Luther, nor will I have his impact, but I wonder if this is how he felt when he posted his “95 Theses”? I’ve only got seven.

Anyway, you can sense my frustration. I am upset. I mean…trying to get me fired?!?! I am beginning to see the truth of the wise advice from someone on another blog that if I am going to pursue these questions online, it might be best to do it anonymously.

Hey Jeremy,

I think that it’s great that you’re willing to be open-minded and question your beliefs. Accepting doctrines just because others tell you to is like the blind leading the blind when it comes to faith. If what you’re being taught is true, then you should be able to discover and come to that conclusion on your own anyway.

It’s 5am, so I’m sorry for not being able to explain myself very well. I found a link to your blog from the de-Conversion website, and contrary to what some of your visitors here believe, de-C welcomes both believers, and non-believers alike. You’re free to join in on our discussions, and no our aim is not to de-convert you from your religion. I find it nice having open-minded and intellectual Christians contribute to the blog, because it gives me (an atheist) something to think about. My lack of faith is due to the lack of solid evidence, reason, and skepticism in Christianity. I’m hoping that Christians who have these qualities are willing to share, and that you are one of them.

Anyway, do what you feel is right regardless of the pressure, and I wish you best of luck with whatever you decide

Jeremy,

That is sad that other believers would commit such an act. Sometimes I wonder if people know how to discern meaning from reading words. If there is anything I can do please let me know.

In His Strength,

Jim

Hey Jeremy:

Re: people trying to oust you for asking questions

There was a group in recent history that expected total obedience with no questions or doubts. It was the Communist Party in the USSR.

my $.02

Sorry folks I posted in the middle of the night on the other side of the world and my head was up-side down in time. When I looked at the post this morning I could see (lots of mistakes) that I could not see last night. So I have made a few corrections but probably not enough to claim inerrancy.
Hey Jeremy, sorry about being a couple of years late in my response. I was always a little slow and in my old age I am not getting faster.

Concerning doubts about:
•
• A literal, six-day-24-hour creation 6000 years ago. (Was Moses really writing a scientific treatise?)
• “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 OT.)
• A future seven-year Tribulation. (Some of the passages used to teach this may not do so after all.)
• Church. (The way we “do church” today is at best ineffective, and possibly 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.)
Don’t worry, I am not ready to burn you at the stake yet, and I trust you are moving cautiously to work through some of these issues. Everyone change his mind about some things over time. But some of these issues do not represent “cardinal doctrines” and some do. Allow me to begin where you did, at creation:

First of all, for even the young earth people (of which I am one) the six thousand years ago view has never been considered very important. Henry Morris, the father of the modern creation movement, explains why in his examination of the biblical data related to such a matter. The issue is not about when this happened (6 or 10, or 15 thousand years ago). Still, I think that it is fairly evident from Scripture that is was by any estimate (based on what we know about Scripture and history) “relatively” recent. The more important and mostly unrelated question is really about the length of the day in creation. That is where the slippery slope enters the picture.

Why not a different understanding of the three days related to our Lord’s death and resurrection? The issue of Moses writing a scientific treatise seems to me to be a ”red herring”. The only valid question is, was he right in what he said? Jesus seemed to think he was.

Secondly, I have never been called a “heretic” because I believe that the number of specific prophesies concerning our Lord’s first coming is greatly exaggerated by some popular writers. There is great apologetic and interpretive value in what we call the prophetic portions of Scripture, but I do not think that the 300 plus prophecies that are supposed to refer to Jesus all do. Some clearly do. Some may not. Maybe I have not read all the same commentaries on this topic but I typically only read this argument of the 300 prophecies argument in some less than careful works.

That does not mean they are wrong but when I look at certain passages used this way, I cannot see prophecies of Jesus in them. When people say that it “is all about Jesus” they may need to do some explaining, though the heart may be in the right place when they say this. Being a Dallas Man and knowing first-hand and even personally some of the writings of many of the great dispensationalists (past and present) I do not need to tell you that hermeneutics is important but not always for the reasons (or conclusions) some attribute to it.

To read Scripture without a commitment to a historical-grammatical approach to interpretation does not guarantee that everyone will connect the dots (doctrinally) as they should. It is, however, the best, and I believe the only way to insure that anyone and everyone (with or without) a seminary education can know what God means by what he says. Take that away, and it becomes very subjective. It can easily be about systems leading to the right way to look at Scripture, rather than Scripture being the standard for evaluating truth and error.

Third, I agree that not every passage popularly used to teach a 7 year pre-tribulation rapture does but surely many do. In fact, passages use for this purpose definitely and obviously do not teach a 7 year pretribulation rapture , as most good dispensationalist commentaries will point out. Some passages used to teach some of the things we consider non-negotiable truths do not teach what it is claimed they teach. Still a non-negotiable truth is still non-negotiable if it is clearly taught somewhere else in Scripture. The issue is, does Scripture teach this or that. A lot of detractors of the pre-tribulation 7 year Rapture engage in what I call “slight of mouth”. So what if a particular passage does not teach a pre-tribulation rapture. If you have one in mind, do not misuse it this way. Again, most good commentaries will point out these misuses and then point out those passages that do teach this.

Fourth, if I understand your comments about the church and you are being critical of the church, this could be said about much of the church at the end of the first century. I would say that since you have a Bible and can compare the way it should be done with how you believe it is being done, can then do it right and do it better. Isn’t what we are supposed to at least try to do?

There are of course a lot of things about church life (in most churches and maybe all churches) that could use serious improving. Just be sure to not throw the baby out with the bath water. I suspect that when we do finally get to heaven, we will discover that this very imperfect thing called the church (in all its sometimes confusing manifestations) was the greatest source of comfort and good on the earth, save the person of our Lord Himself.

Fifth, concerning the “Eternal, conscious torment in hell”, take what the Bible actually says about hell and its duration”. If you do not believe some of the things that some people think is scriptural is scriptural and cannot find it in Scripture, just ignore it. In my 42 years in the ministry I have never even heard anyone say that this is what you must say about hell in great detail. Only provide details if they are explicit or implicit in what Scripture says. Who is going to fault you for that? I would add however, that the eternality and bliss of heaven seem juxtaposed to the eternality and suffering of where the lost go. It would seem that if bliss is certain and eternal for the redeemed, so is suffering for those who die in unbelief and rejections of our Savior.

What we can all be assured of is that no matter how this eternal suffering is experienced it will never be other than “just”. For me, that is a very frightening prospect. When I hear people complain about hell it is usually because they think it will be worse than the eternally lost deserve. In reality it will be exactly what the eternal lost deserve. If heaven is going to be good for all and better for some, hell will be bad for all and worse for some. It could not be otherwise.
Sixth, concerning the fall of Satan and Angels I must have been hanging out in the wrong churches. Evangelicals agree that enough is said in Scripture to give us the big picture on these matters and some details as well. As with matters related to hell, if you do not see something explicitly or implicitly taught in Scripture, ignore what is not there. I have a hard believing that most folks will even want to be “tarred and feathered” if you fail to teach what you cannot find in Scripture, especially on matter such as this. Maybe you have been hanging with a tougher crowd of church folk than I have.

Hey Jeremy I am probably way behind the eight ball, but I hope these questions do not reflect a change in the more basic doctrines of the Christian faith.
In Christ, George

it has often bothered me that two devout Spirit-filled Christians can have opposing views on the same scriptures. how do you discern which is right?

the part that bothers me about 6 day creationism is what it says about God. Why would there be archeological evidence of a very old earth if it is young? Is God the Great Pretender?

And how do you reconcile the different creation stories which have different orders of creation? and the two different Noah stories?

What is wrong with annihilationism?
Many people are beginning to adopt this doctrine (although Seventh-Day Adventists have held to it for a long time–and they have compelling scriptural weight behind it).
Numbers, of course, is not a scriptural argument here–but it might ease the loneliness just enough for some to gather the courage to investigate the scriptures..
It’s the least contortionist position of all the views out there–including NT Wright’s understanding.
I think it deserves serious consideration.
One good treatment is the chapter “Worst Lie Ever Told” in the book Searching for a God to Love by Chris Blake. “Forever” doesn’t necessarily mean “forever” and I think that if you’re willing to question young-earth creationism, then annihilationism deserves an honest appraisal.

The opposite of faith is not doubt but certitude–the kind of black and white fundamentalism that is the bane of many of our world’s religions.

I applaud your honesty and open questioning. I have walked a very similar labyrinth.
I remember a rainy night in Trafalgar Square London a number of years ago. I was on a European soul searching trip having graduated from Moody Bible Institute and feeling utterly pissed off with the cruelty of certitude that I had experienced there. That said, I was scared of the questions that were bubbling up in my soul–really scared. So, sitting there in the great square I vowed to God that I would never walk away from my core beliefs (many of which you’ve stated) and that if I was inclined to, would God please take me before that ever happened.

Well, all of your leaning towers of doctrine have fallen for me. And I’m still alive! The sky did not fall. In fact I feel a great weight off my shoulders.

Anyhow, peace to you!

Man Jeremy. I wish we lived in the same city. I would love to get to know you and pick your brain. Tongues was an issue I have struggled with. I attended a church that taught against speaking in tongues and made you sign saying you would not teach it in their churches. Then I went to a charasmstic church and witnessed it.

Keep the faith brother! And keep writing. I love reading your stories.