A Critique Of Contextual Theology: Are The Meanings Of The Biblical Texts Changeless Or Adaptable?

A Critique of Contextual Theology: Are the Meanings of the Biblical Texts Changeless or Adaptable?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

What is Contextual Theology?

Is all theology contextual? Do different contexts have the role of attributing theological meanings to Christian texts? Or is there a subtext that does not change? And, if so, what are some of the criteria that assign meaning to theology, particularly to Christian theology?

First of all, what is “contextual theology” anyway? It’s basically a way of doing theology that takes into account both past and present contexts, be they anthropological, biological, psychological, philosophical, or otherwise. That is to say, it reconsiders the cultural milieu or the Sitz im Leben (i.e. the “setting in life") in which a text has been produced, as well as its particular purpose and function at that time. Contextual theology, then, considers both the traditions of the past, which received the revelations, as well as those of the present, and reassesses them within the framework of today’s socioeconomic and political context. In other words, the term contextual theology is a reference to the way in which Christianity has adapted its teachings to fit the successive cultural periods.

Some Examples of Contextual

Theology

For example, the early church fathers were heavily influenced by Greek thought, so their interpretation of scripture was largely derived from Platonism (e.g. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc.). That was their particular form of contextualizing theology. Every book of the Bible was composed and edited within a specific context, be it the Exodus, the Law given to Moses at Sinai, the Babylonian Exile, or the occasional letters of the New Testament that were prompted by some crisis. And we could go on and on. Aquinas’ philosophical conceptions were heavily influenced by the rediscovery of Aristotle’s works. Not too long ago, existentialism provided the impetus for a new type of theology, and so on and so forth.

It seems as if Christian theology has hitherto been articulated in the context of the life and times in which the texts were interpreted and read. Hence the shifting theological paradigms, down through the ages, appear to be byproducts of this cultural phenomenon. As time passes, people’s ideas about theology seem to change as well. Questions associated with the quest for the historical Jesus, the nature of the triune God, and the like, arose out of much debate and discussion that often included diametrically opposed contexts. As the church councils began in the early part of the 4th century, one contextual paradigm triumphed over another. Similarly, various paradigms and approaches to scripture began to shift during the reformation and counterreformation. At the end of the day, who is to say which was the true one?

A Brief Introduction to Contextual

Theologies

Contextual theology, therefore, is a response to the dynamics of a specific cultural context. People from a different cultural worldview, such as Latin or Asian or Arabic culture, have distinct economic and social issues. That’s why there are so many contextual theologies, employing various interdisciplinary approaches, to try to explore these different sociopolitical issues, such as African theology, Minjung theology, Liberation theology, and so on.

Let’s briefly define some of these theologies to get a taste of their doctrines. Minjung theology (lit. the people's theology) is based on the South-Korean Christian fight for social justice. This theology has developed a political-gospel hermeneutic to address the Korean reality. From this point of view, Jesus is seen more as an activist for social reform than as a spiritual teacher.

Another branch of Christian theology from the Indian subcontinent is called Dalit theology. It places heavy emphasis on Jesus’ mission statement, which some theologians call the Nazareth Manifesto (Lk 4.16-20), namely, the proclamation of “good news to the poor,” the release of prisoners, the “recovery of sight to the blind,” as well as letting “the oppressed go free.” From this perspective, Jesus is identified as a marginalized Dalit (i.e. a servant) whose mission is seen as liberating individuals not only from their sociopolitical and economic oppression but also from racial segregation and persecution. But does this theology really capture the core message of Jesus’ mission? Is Jesus really a political “liberator” who is solely interested in an economic and political system that guarantees equality of the rights of citizens? Or are the impoverished those who are not materially but rather spiritually poor? Although the physical dimension of these Biblical passages cannot be denied——after all, many were physically healed of all diseases, according to the narratives——nevertheless, given that the sermons of Jesus emphasize sin and the issues of the heart, one might reasonably argue that he’s referring to the prisoners of sin, and that the recovery of sight might be a metaphor for the truth that “will make you free” (Jn 8.32).

Similarly, many contextual theologies misinterpret the Beatitudes as political manifestos. Notice that Jesus says “Blessed are the poor in spirit,” not the materially poor (Mt. 5.3). Moreover, he doesn’t say blessed are those who are physically hungry and thirst. Rather, he says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (v. 6). So, we have the poor in spirit who will inherit “the kingdom of heaven” (v. 3), and those who hunger for spiritual righteousness who “will be filled” (v. 6). It beggars belief that any theologian can misinterpret this pericope from the Sermon on the Mount as nothing more than a social concern for the materially poor, while promising some sort of Marxist political and economic liberation for oppressed peoples.

This is precisely how Liberation theology interprets such passages. Liberation theology was developed in Latin America and was employed politically as a “preferential option for the poor.” It is true that the Bible is concerned about the welfare of the poor and needy. But it is not a political manifesto designed to liberate them through some new political system. To see Jesus as a prototype of Adam Smith or Karl Marx is to miss the point entirely. Although the Bible certainly addresses these issues and urges us to be equitable and compassionate, its primary message is soteriological, urging us to be born again: “be transformed by the renewing of your minds” (Rom. 12.2); be “born from above” (Jn 3.3)! Clearly, this is a *spiritual* message that has few political implications. It’s also important to note that Jesus did not want the crowds to politicize his message (Jn 6.15 NRSV):

When Jesus realized that they were about

to come and take him by force to make him

king, he withdrew again to the mountain by

himself.

The Excesses of Feminist Theology

A subset of this view is Feminist theology, which is primarily concerned with the oppression of women. The aim of feminist theology is to liberate women from a hitherto patriarchal society by giving them equal rights among the religious authorities and clergy. This theology attempts to reinterpret patriarchal language and imagery about God, while reevaluating the status of women in sacred texts. Feminist reinterpretations of scripture will often reject the male gender of God and will omit using male pronouns to refer to this figure. Feminist theology will often call into question authoritarian, pontific, or disciplinarian images of God and replace them with “nurturing” and “maternal” attributes.

This theology has inevitably led to the excesses of various sects who even describe Jesus as a woman. For instance, the “Dongfang Shandian” (aka Eastern Lightning) is a Christian cult from central China which teaches that Christ has been reincarnated as a woman, and that the saints are engaged in an apocalyptic battle against China's Communist Party. However, these are gross exegetical errors which take liberties in manipulating the language of the original text to suit their theological needs.

Case in point. In his recent book “What Jesus Learned from Women,” author James F. McGrath took a simple verse (mentioned only once in the entire Bible; Rom. 16.7) and turned it into a novel where both Paul and even the great Jesus himself have come under Junia’s spell. The implication is that both Paul and Jesus may have gained valuable knowledge from a woman named Junia. It’s all based on a single, isolated verse which doesn’t even hold a single shred of historical, textual, or literary evidence to substantiate the claim. Not only does it contradict Paul’s explicit statement in Galatians 1.11-12—-in which he says that his gospel is not of human origin and that he “did not receive it from a human source”——but it also subordinates the status of the miracle-working Son of God to that of an unknown female follower, who supposedly taught him everything he knows. Unfortunately, this one-verse doctrine is equivalent to speculative fiction. It simply doesn’t meet scholarly and academic parameters.

Problems of Contextual Theology

The Contextualization process is employed in the study of Biblical translations as regards their cultural settings. Hermeneutically speaking, contextualization seeks to comprehend the origins of words that were used by the Hebrew and Greek texts, and Latin translations. However, it has also allowed secular and political groups to read their own message into the text by expanding the cultural contexts so as to accommodate such meanings. Given that modern liberal contexts are intrinsically alien and sometimes even contradictory to the authorial intent of the scriptures, the contextualization process of attributing cultural or political “meaning” to a text can have dire consequences.

The omission and replacement of the words of scripture with more “context appropriate” terminology with regard to race, gender, inclusive language, sexual orientation, and sociopolitical considerations, coupled with large-scale contextual *reinterpretations,* not only violates its integrity but it also represents a desecration of the text, which actually expresses a fundamental equality of all people whose identity is derived exclusively from Christ: “There is no longer Jew or Greek [race], there is no longer slave or free [power structure], there is no longer male and female [gender]; for all of you are one [equal] in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3.28 NRSV).

Even though the Biblical texts were created within a cultural context and not in a vacuum, nevertheless the verbal plenary inspiration——the notion that each word was meaningfully chosen by God——supersedes the cultural milieu by virtue of its inspired revelation, if indeed it is a revelation. In that case, the language from which the text is operating must be preserved without additions, subtractions, or alterations (cf. Deut. 4.2; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, It is incumbent on the Biblical scholars to maintain the integrity of the text. One thing is certain. The New Testament was not only significantly changed by the Westcott and Hort text, but it has also been evolving gradually with culturally sensitive translations regarding gender, sexual orientation, racism, inclusive language, and the like. Contextual theology has broadened the scope of the original text by adding a whole host of modern political and socioeconomic contexts (e.g. critical theory) that lead to many misinterpretations because they’re largely irrelevant to the core message of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus!

——-

How Did God Inspire the Biblical Authors?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

Our Teacher Should Be the Holy Spirit

Before I venture out to expound on how Biblical “inspiration” occurs, it’s important to first say a few words about who determines the “meaning” of a text. In other words, where should we get our “hermeneutic” from? Should we draw it from our personal responses? Or should we conform to what the scholars say? But isn’t that still speculation and conjecture either way? Yes, it is! And it could be totally wrong, even if it’s a long-held consensus held by leading scholars! So what determines the meaning of a text? Is it Bible-study tools? No because they only give us a partial understanding. The short answer is: the Holy Spirit! Just as the Holy Spirit is responsible for “inspiring” the Biblical authors, so it is also responsible for communicating the “meaning” to its “recipients.” However, its recipients are not just anyone. They are neither those who openly profess to be “reborn” Christians nor those who post Facebook memes, “Repent or Go to Hell.” Rather, they’re the true, authentic Christians who don’t show off and hardly ever talk about their status as saved believers. Unbeknownst to the Cessationists, they hear from God “directly.” And they can interpret the Bible not based on current theological trends or methods of exegesis but on the word of the Spirit! So, they are “in the know.” Ideally, this is where the meaning of Scripture should come from! Bible-study tools won’t reveal these meanings no matter how sophisticated they might be. Now, let’s get back to the concept of Biblical “inspiration.”

Can the Bible Limit What God Can and Cannot Do?

There are many modern Biblical interpreters who hold to a form of “Pelagianism.” In ancient times, the Pelagian heresy comprised the Christian theological position that the human will alone is capable of choosing the good without the assistance of grace or any divine aid. Even Jesus’ salvific atonement becomes ultimately irrelevant in this view. These people, and I have met quite a few of them, don’t believe that the Spirit plays any significant role in our salvation. According to them, all we need to do is to follow the external dictates of the Bible. In this view, the Bible replaces God and thus becomes God-like, so to speak. Besides contradicting large portions of the New Testament, this position is also heretical in another way because it presents a counterfeit Christianity; that is to say, it presents the exact opposite of what authentic salvation truly consists of. It rejects inward spiritual experiences that lead to true “union” with God and promotes only an external form of obedience to rules and regulations. Jesus himself explains that such people don’t know God; they have neither heard from him nor do they know his “word”:

“You have never heard his voice or seen his

form, and you do not have his word abiding

in you, because you do not believe him

whom he has sent” (Jn 5.27-38).

Jesus nails it. Their erroneous doctrine is based on disbelief. In essence, they don’t even believe in Jesus. He goes on to say:

“You search the Scriptures because you

think that in them you have eternal life; it is

these that testify about Me” (Jn 5.39).

So, for them, the Bible has supplanted the Godhead and has become their “god.” It’s no longer God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit who holds sway but rather the Bible per se and nothing but the Bible. That’s a form of idol-worship where “a means to an end” has suddenly become an end in itself! The King-James Only cult is a case in point!

The Dictation Theory

What is more, as far as Biblical inspiration is concerned, most modern scholars typically say that the Holy Spirit did not give the New Testament authors each and every word by dictation. To which I say, why not? They try desperately to fit in with the modern-secular, liberal culture that does not believe in supernatural phenomena and mocks all forms of divine communications. And yet, according to the Bible, these communications do exist (see 2 Tim. 3:16–17)!

The Bible stands or falls on the presence or absence of these divine communications. What ever happened to the Old Testament declaration: “Thus says the LORD”? Why water it down? Why dilute it to make it more palatable to the masses? Either God communicates with the human family or he doesn’t. In other words, either the Bible is the word of God or it isn’t. It’s that simple. By comparison, you’re either pregnant or you’re not. There’s no in between. Either God directly spoke to Isaiah and to Jeremiah or he didn’t. If he did, the Bible is transcribing divine communications. If he didn’t, then the Bible is the word of man. But if God indeed spoke to Isaiah, why couldn’t he equally speak to the Biblical authors, giving them the precise words audibly? After all, the authors themselves claimed to have heard God speak, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt. 3.17). Besides, Jesus himself openly declares:

“For I did not speak on my own, but the

Father who sent me commanded me to say

all that I have spoken” (Jn 12.49).

If God has spoken directly in Isaiah 6.7, Jeremiah 26.2, Ezek. 28.2, John 2.1, 8, and also through Jesus (Jn 12.49), why wouldn’t he speak directly to the Biblical authors as well? It’s akin to when “Jeremiah called Baruch son of Neriah, and Baruch wrote on a scroll at Jeremiah's dictation all the words of the Lord that he had spoken to him” (Jer. 36.4).

The Dictation Theory Has Been Greatly Misunderstood

The reason most scholars don’t accept the dictation theory is because it seems to suggest that the Holy Spirit inscribed the words of Scripture through the agency of human authors who were somehow under God’s full control, in a state of passivity (perhaps in a trance), in which God dictated each and every word with perfect accuracy. In other words, scholars totally mischaracterize this communication process, as if they’re talking about zombies, automatons, people half-asleep, on sodium pentothal, under hypnosis, somnambulism, or the walking dead. In other words, the dictation theory has often been mistaken for the mechanical view of inspiration, such as automatic writing, and the like.

This mischaracterization and distortion stems from the fact that these scholars don’t yet fully understand what salvation really is, that is to say, what the relationship of the regenerated person to God consists of. Actually, by default, a regenerated person is already under the control of God, so that they don’t have to pass out or become an automaton in order to hear God’s voice. In other words, God communicates with them naturally, without restriction or interference, via a form of interpersonal communication while they are physically and cognitively stable, completely aware, and fully conscious! Therefore, the authentic, born-again Christians are already under God’s control and don’t need altered states of consciousness in order to hear God’s voice. Given that they are already sons of God (Jn 1.12-13), “born of the Spirit” of God (Jn 3.5-6), they hear God all the time (Jn 10.14, 27, 28)!

Stylistic Differences May Reflect the Source Rather Than the Authors

As for the argument pertaining to the stylistic differences between the New Testament authors, which suggests a variety of different personalities at work——consequently ruling out the possibility of verbatim-dictation from a single source——my reply is, why couldn’t the “stylistic differences” reflect the source rather than the authors? In other words, perhaps the texts reflect the Spirit itself——setting the context and content in various ways within the different compositions——rather than the individual personalities of the authors. After all, Heb. 1.1 says that “God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets.” That’s why we can find verbal agreements between disparate texts. For example, we read in the Old Testament narrative of Exodus 34.29 that Moses’ “face shone” (Hb. qaran; meaning “shine”) and then, lo and behold, we find the exact same equivalent words used in the Greek New Testament (Matthew 17.2) to say that Jesus’ “face shone” (Gk. ἔλαμψεν; meaning “shine”). Two completely different authors with completely different writing styles and languages, writing from two completely different time periods and locations, with over 1,000 years separating the two texts, and yet we find verbal agreements! Why? Same source; same Spirit dictating the exact same words through different languages and styles. Such verbal agreements and parallels abound in Scripture. Otherwise, if it was left up to each and every individual author to write whatever they wanted, then it would obviously be the word of man and should not be accepted as the word of God.

Biblical Interpretation Should Be Based Entirely on Biblical Inspiration

Furthermore, Biblical interpretation should be based entirely on the Spirit, not on guess-work. Being partly-right doesn’t cut it because it implies that we may also be partly-wrong. Either we know what’s going on or we don’t:

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide

you into all the truth; for he will not speak on

his own, but will speak whatever he hears,

and he will declare to you the things that

are to come [ἐρχόμενα]” (Jn 16.13).

In other words, those who are indwelt by the Spirit walk by the Spirit and are constantly informed by the Spirit who guides them “into all the truth.”

Conclusion

Therefore, based on the aforementioned reasons, it seems indisputable that the Spirit of God inspired the Biblical authors by giving them each and every word by dictation. For God speaks to us directly, but only those who belong to him can actually hear his voice. The following quote demonstrates that Scripture (which is almost entirely prophetic) was not left to the discretion of the individual authors but that the authors were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” when they “spoke from God”:

“for no prophecy was ever produced by the

will of man, but men carried along by the

Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1.21).

——-

Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim

——-

Calvinism Has Confused God's Foreknowledge With His Sovereignty

Dr. R.C. Sproul once said:

There is no maverick molecule if God is

sovereign.

That is to say, if God cannot control the smallest things we know of in the universe, such as the subatomic particles known as “quarks,” then we cannot trust him to keep His promises. But just because God set the universe in motion doesn’t mean that every detail therein is held ipso facto to be caused by him. God could still be sovereign and yet simultaneously permit the existence of evil and free will. This is not a contradiction (see Compatibilism aka Soft determinism). It seems that Calvinism has confused God’s foreknowledge with his sovereignty.

Calvinists often use Bible verses out-of-context to support the idea that God is partial: that he plays favorites with human beings. They often quote Exodus 33.19b (ESV):

I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,

and will show mercy on whom I will show

mercy.

But the only thing that this verse is saying is that God’s grace is beyond human understanding, not that God is partial and biased (cf. Rom. 11.33-34). By contrast, the parable of the vineyard workers (Mt 20.1–16) promotes equality between many different classes of people. One interpretation of this parable would be that late converts to Christianity earn equal rewards along with early converts, and there need be no jealousy among the latter. This can be understood on many different levels. For example, one could view the early laborers as Jews who may resent the Gentile newcomers for being treated as equals by God. Some seem to get more rewards, others less, depending on many factors unbeknownst to us. But the point of the parable is that God is fair. No one gets cheated. However, in Calvinism, God is not fair. He does as he pleases. He creates evil and chooses who will be saved and who will be lost. This view is more in line with the capricious gods of Greek mythology than with the immutable God of the Bible.

That’s why Calvinism speaks of limited atonement. Christ’s atoning death is not for everyone, but only for a select few. You cannot look an atheist in the eye and tell them that Christ died for you. You’d be lying because, according to Calvinism, he may not have died for them. So the story goes...

But that’s a gross misinterpretation. Romans 8.29-30 doesn’t say that at all. It’s NOT saying that God used his powers indiscriminately to influence Individuals in some cases, but not in others. Nor does it follow that God played favorites and decided at the outset that some will be saved, and others not (tough luck, as it were). Not at all. All it says is that God can *foresee* the future!

God doesn’t CAUSE everything to happen as it does, but he does SEE what will happen. So, insofar as God was able to “see” who would eventually submit to his will (and who would not), one could say that God “foreknew” him. In Romans 8.29, the Greek term προέγνω comes from the word προγινώσκω (proginóskó), which means “to know beforehand” or to “foreknow.” It doesn’t imply determinism, the notion that all events in history, including those of human action, are predetermined by extraneous causes, and that people have no say in the matter, and are therefore not responsible for their actions. It simply means to know beforehand. That’s all. Case in point, Isaiah, Daniel, and John the Revelator saw the future; but they didn’t cause it.

God would never have predestined some people to be eternally lost and some to be eternally saved. That would not be just. Similarly, Romans 8.29-30 is only referring to those individuals whom God “foreknew” (προέγνω) that would meet the conditions of his covenant, those are the same he predestined (προώρισεν), called (ἐκάλεσεν), justified (ἐδικαίωσεν), and glorified (ἐδόξασεν)! Otherwise, how could God have possibly predestined those who he foresaw that would NOT meet the conditions of his covenant?

The Greek term προώρισεν (proōrisen; predestined) is derived from the word προορίζω (proorizó), which means “to predetermine” or “foreordain.” In other words, those whom God could *foresee* in the future as being faithful, those same individuals he pre-approved to be conformed to the image of his son. So, by “predestination” God simply means that he’s “declaring the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46.9-10 NASB). It’s not as if God was the direct cause of their decision or free choice. He simply foresaw those who had already chosen to be conformed to the image of his son of their own accord. Notice that in Rom. 8.29 (Berean Literal Bible), the text says that BECAUSE God foreknew them, he predestined them. This means that the *foresight* came first. Since God could see the outcome, he “foreknew” who would be lost and who would be saved:

because those whom He foreknew, He also

predestined to be conformed to the image

of His Son.

——-

Does John Piper represent Biblical Christianity?

Theologian and pastor John Piper cites Acts 4.27-28 (ESV) to prove his point that God determines everything that happens:

for truly in this city there were gathered

together against your holy servant Jesus,

whom you anointed, both Herod and

Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and

the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your

hand and your plan had predestined to take

place.

Piper says, when you understand the complete sovereignty of God, that is to say, how he is behind everything, that he is implicated in every aspect of existence, you’ll go crazy. Why? This occurs, I suspect, because the person you thought was your best friend turns out to be your worst enemy. How can you trust him? Piper says,

He [God] governed the most wicked thing

that ever happened in the world, the

crucifixion of my savior.

Piper says that there is no randomness in the universe, and that God is behind the Tsunamis and everything else that occurs on our planet. That would imply that God is behind the earthquakes, the hurricanes, the train wrecks, the airplane crashes, the massacres, the terrorist attacks, the racist attacks, the rapes, the violent riots, the Holocaust, the Third Reich, the Manson murders, the serial killings, cannibalism, the world wars, the abortions, the beheadings, the heinous crimes, the shootings, beatings, & stabbings of the elderly, and the filicides and genocides of history. God’s behind it all. And if you contemplate this idea, it will drive you mad, says John Piper. So, in order to stay sane, he suggests that we focus on the Cross. We have to believe that God nevertheless loves us and that he was behind the murder of Jesus for our salvation. This will keep us safe from harm; from going mad, that is. Really?

In other words, God’s dictatorist regime or tyrannical authority works much like the Mafia, a secret organization or crime syndicate which controls everything from the street corner thugs to the highest levels of government. God is like a mafia boss who puts out a contract to “whack” somebody but, instead of killing him himself and taking the blame, he orders an underboss (Satan) to do his dirty work. In other words, he hires accomplices to kill people on his behalf because he’s such a coward that he doesn’t want to take the responsibility and do it himself, or to be seen as evil, yet he’s the real cause of everything, good and evil. A literal or fundamentalist interpretation of the Old Testament will no doubt lead to that conclusion (cf. Isa. 45.7). This is also the god of the Gnostics, the inferior creator-god (or demiurge) that was revealed through Hebrew scripture, who was responsible for all instances of falsehood and evil in the world!

But is this a sincere, honorable, and reliable person whom you could trust? Or is this a vile, dishonest, and despicable person who pretends to be something he is not? Does this god deserve our worship? Is he not a liar? Is this a truly loving, Holy God, or is he rather a cruel, deceitful, and merciless beast that hides behind a veneer of righteousness, much like the mafia bosses and the corrupt heads of state?

Then, after depicting a gruesome picture of a cold blooded killer-God who would order a hit on women and innocent children (cf. 1 Sam. 15.3), Piper cites Isa. 53.10:

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him

[christ] with pain.

He concludes:

Therefore the worst sin that was ever

committed was ordained by God.

Piper exclaims, “The answer is yes, he controls everything, and he does it for his glory and our good.” This is the God of Calvinism, fashioned from the pit of hell itself, which depicts God’s rule as a deep state or a totalitarian government, “A celestial North Korea,” in the words of the critic Christopher Hitchens.

What ever happened to the attribute of omnibenevolence, the doctrine that God is all-good, sans evil (cf. Ps 106.1; 135.3; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18)? Isaiah 65.16 calls him “the God of truth” (cf. Jn 17.17), while Titus 1.1-2 asserts that God “never lies.” Psalm 92.15 (NIV) declares:

The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and

there is no wickedness in him.

So, there seems to be a theological confusion in Calvinism about what God does and doesn’t do. Predestination is based on foreknowledge, not on the impulsive whims of a capricious deity. To “cause” is one thing; to “foreknow” is quite another.

At a deeper, philosophical level we’re talking about the problem of evil: who’s responsible for all the suffering and evil in the world? Piper would say, God is. Blame it on God. I would say that this teaching not only contradicts the Bible but also the attributes of God. If hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25.41), and if God is held accountable for orchestrating everything, then the devil cannot be held morally responsible for all his crimes against humanity. Besides, doesn’t scripture say that Christ “went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil”? (Acts 10.38 ESV). Yet, according to Calvinism, God not only creates evil but is himself ipso facto evil! Thus, neither John Piper nor Calvinism represent Biblical Christianity! Rather, this is an aberration, a contradiction, a false doctrine. 1 Timothy 4.1 (CEV) warns:

God's Spirit clearly says that in the last

days many people will turn from their faith.

They will be fooled by evil spirits and by

teachings that come from demons.

In the following video, a question was posed to Calvinist pastor John Piper:

Has God predetermined every detail in the

universe, including sin?

To which Piper replied:

YES!

Therefore, in Calvinism,

God has become Satan!

The Giant Jesus in the Gospel of Peter

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

Bart Ehrman dates the non-canonical Gospel of Peter to ca. 150 ce or earlier. It’s considered to be a pseudepigraphical work. However, according to John Dominic Crossan, it seems to incorporate an early source for the passion-narrative that may predate all other known passion accounts. These scholarly views suggest that this gospel may have been inspired.

From an eschatological perspective, the giant Jesus coming out of the tomb at the end of days might actually provide the most accurate resurrection narrative to date (cf. Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Heb. 9.26-28). The reason for this is obvious. Revelation 1.7 claims that “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him.” An average 5-foot or 6-foot man in the sky obviously cannot be seen by anyone, let alone by “every eye” of all them that dwell on the face of the earth. On the other hand, a *giant* Jesus can, in fact, be observed from many miles away, thus lending credence to the apocalyptic description in Rev. 1.7. Here’s the *resurrection narrative* in the Gospel of Peter (verses 38-40):

Therefore, having seen this, the

soldiers woke up the centurions and elders,

for they were also keeping watch. And

while they were describing to them the

things they had seen, behold, they saw

three men coming out of the tomb, with the

two young men supporting the One . . . And

the head of the two reaching unto to

heaven, but the One of whom they led out

by the hand, His head reached beyond the

heavens.

Thus, there is a description, here, of a giant resurrected Jesus coming out of the tomb. The point is that Jesus will come back to life not as an average human being but rather as a giant. Of all the postmortem appearances of Jesus, this is probably the most accurate portrayal because it seems to parallel many Biblical passages. For example, it seems to fit with the Pauline Christ——who’s portrayed as a towering figure——who will ultimately destroy the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2.8 NRSV)

with the breath of his mouth, annihilating

him by the manifestation of his coming.

It’s also congruent with another, Old Testament, verse in which the Lord appears as a massive, colossal figure: (Isa. 31.5):

Like birds hovering overhead, so the Lord of

hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect

and deliver it, he will spare and rescue it.

In another, apocalyptic, verse, only a great figure of immense proportion can annihilate a giant dragon called Leviathan (Isa. 27.1 cf. Job 41.1; Ps 74.14):

On that day the Lord with his cruel and

great and strong sword will punish

Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the

twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon

that is in the sea.

That’s precisely why we are told that “There were giants in the earth in those days” (Gen. 6.4 KJV), much like the film characters of Godzilla and King Kong. But which days is Gen. 6.4 referring to? Given that skyscrapers began to be built only in the 20th century, it seems very likely that the “Tower of Babel” (Gen. 11.4) is representative of that same time period, and thus it may have prophetic implications with regard to the end of days. For instance, why does Dan. 9.26, within its description of the last days, declare: “Its end shall come with a flood”? Similarly, why does Lk 17.30 emphatically compare Noah’s flood to the Revelation of Jesus Christ during the day of the Lord? Probably because these earlier Biblical narratives were trying to convey the exact same messages that we find in the later apocalyptic versions of the New Testament, especially in the Book of Revelation!

Conclusion

Given that the authors of the canonical gospels are themselves, at times, seemingly unfamiliar with the local geography, customs, feasts, idioms, language, law, and the religion of the Jews, we cannot therefore dismiss the gospel of Peter on similar grounds. The possibility that the gospel of Peter could incorporate the earliest source for the passion-narratives (Crossan), and that it is dated to the first half of the second century, based on independent oral traditions (Ehrman), means that it could have been a candidate for canonicity. In other words, it may turn out to be partly, if not wholly, inspired. Remember that many current books in the Bible were at one time highly controversial and were not given full canonical status until much later.

Finally, the giant resurrected Christ in the Gospel of Peter is the only version that seems to validate and confirm Revelation’s image of a towering figure on a white horse who “judges and makes war” (Rev. 19.11), and who can actually be seen from the earth (Rev. 1.7). By comparison, an average human being cannot possibly be seen “coming with the clouds of heaven.” Dan. 7.13-14 reads:

As I watched in the night visions, I saw one

like a human being coming with the clouds

of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One

and was presented before him. To him was

given dominion and glory and kingship, that

all peoples, nations, and languages should

serve him. His dominion is an everlasting

dominion that shall not pass away, and his

kingship is one that shall never be

destroyed.

——-

Είναι η Αμαρτία η Αιτία της Ψυχικής Ασθένειας;

άρθρο του ψυχολόγου - συγγραφέα, Ελι Κιτίμ

——-

Χριστιανική Ψυχοθεραπεία

Θα πρέπει να πλαισιώσω τη συζήτηση λέγοντας εξαρχής ότι ο ορισμός μου για τη χριστιανική μέθοδο ψυχοθεραπείας δεν βασίζεται στην οργανωμένη θρησκεία ή σε κάποια συγκεκριμένη χριστιανική εκκλησία. Η «χριστιανική» ψυχολογική προσέγγιση που εισάγω δεν σχετίζεται με θρησκευτικά δόγματα ή θρησκευτικές πρακτικές. Αντίθετα, βασίζεται στην προσωπική μου κατανόηση των συλλογικών βιβλικών διδασκαλιών σε συνδυασμό με τη σύγχρονη ψυχολογία και την υπαρξιακή εμπειρία! Ως εκπαιδευμένος ψυχολόγος, βλέπω μια στενή σχέση μεταξύ αμαρτίας και ψυχολογικής νεύρωσης!

——-

Τι σημαινει αμαρτία;

Σύμφωνα με τους Βιβλικούς όρους, η «αμαρτία» είναι μια πράξη που παραβιάζει τον θεϊκό ηθικό νόμο και θεωρείται εξαιρετικά κατακριτέα, προκαλώντας ενοχή ή/και ντροπή για το άτομο που την διαπράττει μέσω της συνείδησης (δηλ. Superego). Χρησιμοποιώντας κοσμικούς όρους, αυτό ακριβώς αποτελείται από μια κλινική «νεύρωση», δηλαδή, συνειδητά ή ασυνείδητα συναισθήματα ενοχής ή/και ντροπής που εμφανίζονται στην προσωπικότητα ως συμβολικά συμπτώματα, όπως ανησυχίες, φοβίες, καταναγκασμοί, και τα παρόμοια. Αν και ο όρος «νεύρωση» έχει απορριφθεί από το 1980 από το Διαγνωστικό και Στατιστικό Εγχειρίδιο Ψυχικών Διαταραχών (DSM III), είναι ωστόσο διαδεδομένος στην κλινική ψυχοθεραπευτική βιβλιογραφία (π.χ. χρησιμοποιείται ακόμα στο ICD-10 Κεφάλαιο V F40–48).

Φαίνεται λοιπόν ότι υπάρχει κλινική σύνδεση μεταξύ της νεύρωσης και της αμαρτίας. Ορισμένοι αξιοσημείωτοι ψυχαναλυτές, όπως ο Moshe HaLevi Spero, έχουν δημοσιεύσει ακαδημαϊκά έργα σχετικά με αυτήν τη σύνδεση (δείτε το άρθρο του «Sin as Neurosis» στο «Journal of Religion and Health» Τόμος 17, Αρ. 4 [Οκτ. 1978], σελ. 274-287).

——-

Ποια είναι η διαφορά μεταξύ χριστιανικής και κλινικής ψυχοθεραπείας;

Ενώ ο στόχος της σύγχρονης ψυχοθεραπείας είναι να σας κάνει να αισθάνεστε λιγότερο ένοχοι για τη νεύρωσή σας, ο Βιβλικός Χριστιανισμός προσπαθεί να εξαλείψει εντελώς την πηγή της ενοχής σας μέσω της *συγχώρεσης.* Αυτές είναι δύο ριζικά διαφορετικές προσεγγίσεις. H σύγχρονη ψυχολογία στερείται σε μεγάλο βαθμό από ηθικά ζητήματα και βασικά σας ενθαρρύνει να συνεχίσετε να ασκείτε τις αμαρτίες σας (αρκεί να μην πληγώνετε τον εαυτό σας ή τους άλλους), ενώ προσπαθεί να σας πείσει να μην αισθάνεστε τόσο καταδικασμένοι για αυτές. Ζούμε στον 21ο αιώνα. Οι άνθρωποι είναι ελεύθεροι να κάνουν όπως θέλουν. Για παράδειγμα, ένας ψυχαναλυτής είπε κάποτε σε έναν ασθενή — ο οποίος ξαφνικά αποκάλυψε τη σεξουαλική του διαστροφή κατά τη διάρκεια μιας ψυχοδυναμικής θεραπείας — «καλώς ήλθατε στο κλαμπ.»

Η άλλη προσέγγιση (δηλαδή της Βίβλου) αναγνωρίζει ότι κάτι είναι ηθικά λανθασμένο στην ψυχή, και υποστηρίζει ότι, ανεξάρτητα από τις προσπάθειές σας, η ενοχή και η ντροπή δεν θα εξαφανιστούν εντελώς εάν δεν *συγχωρεθείτε.* Η σύγχρονη ψυχοθεραπεία δεν προσφέρει «θεραπεία» αλλά μόνο έναν καλύτερο μηχανισμό αντιμετώπισης που βασίζεται στην καλύτερη κατανόηση των συμπτωμάτων σας. Με άλλα λόγια, στην καλύτερη περίπτωση προσφέρει ένα χάνζαπλαστ.

Ο Βιβλικός Χριστιανισμός, από την άλλη πλευρά, προσφέρει μια «θεραπεία» που βασίζεται σε έναν «εσωτερικό μετασχηματισμό» του νου. Μπορεί να συνεπάγεται περισσότερους κινδύνους και πολύ βαθύτερη κατανόηση, αλλά σχεδόν πάντα εγγυάται μια αλλαγή προσωπικότητας. Με άλλα λόγια, πρέπει να γίνεις ένα νέο πλάσμα: μια νέα δημιουργία. Πρέπει να ξαναγεννηθείς. Μια μέρα είσαι αυτό το άτομο. Την επόμενη μέρα είσαι ένα εντελώς διαφορετικό άτομο. Αυτό ακριβώς συνέβη στον Παύλο (στην Νέα Διαθήκη). Μια μέρα διώκει τους Χριστιανούς. Την επόμενη τους αγαπά και τους προστατεύει. Στην Β΄ Επιστολή προς Κορινθίους (5.17 Νεοελληνικη), ο Παύλος εξηγεί αυτήν την αλλαγή ως εξής:

Όταν κάποιος ανήκει στο Χριστό είναι μια

καινούρια δημιουργία. Τα παλιά πέρασαν·

όλα έχουν γίνει καινούρια.

Η χριστιανική διαδικασία του μετασχηματισμού δεν είναι διαφορετική από εκείνες που σχετίζονται με τον βουδισμό ή τον Ινδουισμό. Στην πραγματικότητα, είναι σχεδόν παρόμοια με αυτές όσον αφορά την αυτοπραγμάτωση και την υπερβατικότητα, η μόνη διαφορά είναι ότι στο κέντρο της αδιαφοροποίητης συνείδησης είναι ο θεϊκός Χριστός. Ο Ιησούς εξηγεί τον λόγο για τον οποίο υποτιμούμε τις διδασκαλίες του (Κατά Ιωάννην Ευαγγέλιον 3.3):

Απήντησε ο Ιησούς και είπε· ‘σε

διαβεβαιώνω, ότι εάν δεν γεννηθή κανείς από

τον ουρανόν, δεν ημπορεί να Ίδη και να

απολαύση την βασιλείαν του Θεού.’

Για αυτό η Επιστολή προς Εφεσίους (4.22-24) μας δίνει εντολή να απομακρύνουμε τον «παλιό εαυτό» μας και να φορέσουμε μια νέα ταυτότητα, που λέει ο λόγος, δηλαδή τον «νέο εαυτό» που δημιουργείται σύμφωνα με την εικόνα του Θεού:

έχετε πράγματι διδαχθή να αποβάλετε

και πετάξετε από επάνω σας τον παλαιόν

άνθρωπον της αμαρτίας όπως αυτός είχε

υπάρξει και εκδηλωθή εις την

προηγουμένην ειδωλολατρικήν ζωήν και

συμπεριφοράν σας. Αυτός ο παλαιός

άνθρωπος, εξ αιτίας των αμαρτιών και των

παθών του, φθείρεται συνεχώς και

προχωρεί στον όλεθρον από τας επιθυμίας,

που ανάπτει η απατηλή αμαρτία. Εχετε

ακόμη διδαχθή να ανανεώνεσθε συνεχώς με

τα υγιή πνευματικά φρονήματα του νου σας

και να ενδυθήτε τον νέον άνθρωπον, ο

οποίος ανεδημιουργήθη και αναγεννήθη

σύμφωνα με το θέλημα του Θεού.

Έτσι, από αυτήν την άποψη, δεν χρειάζεται να επισκέπτεστε έναν ψυχίατρο μία φορά την εβδομάδα. Αυτό που χρειάζεστε είναι μια ριζική αλλαγή προσωπικότητας. Με άλλα λόγια, δεν χρειάζεστε ομιλίες. Χρειάζεστε συγχώρεση!

——-

Η χριστιανική ψυχοθεραπεία όχι μόνο θεραπεύει αλλά προσφέρει και σωτηρία

Εκτός από αυτό το ψυχοθεραπευτικό πλεονέκτημα που προσφέρει η Βίβλος, στο οποίο μπορεί να επιτευχθεί βαθιά εσωτερική ικανοποίηση, παρέχει επίσης κάποιες ιδέες για το ασυνείδητο κίνητρο και την ανθρώπινη συμπεριφορά. Για παράδειγμα, υπερβαίνει το προσωπικό ασυνείδητο και μας ενημερώνει για τις επιρροές του λεγόμενου «συλλογικού ασυνείδητου» στην ψυχή μας, όπως έχει δείξει το έργο του Ελβετού ψυχίατρου, Καρλ Γκούσταβ Γιουνγκ.

Φυσικά, το θέμα της υπερβατικής φιλοσοφίας είναι σημαντικό επειδή, στο Βιβλικό πλαίσιο, η υπέρβαση αναφέρεται στις μεταφυσικές πτυχές της φύσης, οι οποίες είναι πέρα ​​από όλους τους φυσικούς νόμους. Αυτά τα παραψυχολογικά φαινόμενα μπορούν να παρουσιαστούν σε διάφορες «θρησκευτικές εμπειρίες» του τύπου που μελετά ο ψυχολόγος Γουίλιαμ Τζέιμς, οι οποίες συνήθως εκδηλώνονται στην προσευχή, στην υπερηαισθητική αντίληψη, στη διόραση, στον διαλογισμό ή στα παραφυσικά «οράματα» και στις υπαρξιακές εμπειρίες. Εν ολίγοις, φαίνεται να υπάρχει σύνδεση μεταξύ φυσικών και μεταφυσικών φαινομένων που παίζονται στον ψυχολογικό τομέα του ατόμου και στον τομέα του νου.

Για το σκοπό αυτό, η Βίβλος έχει πολλά να πει σχετικά με το πώς διαγιγνώσκουμε και ως εκ τούτου αντιμετωπίζουμε ορισμένες ασθένειες. Πρέπει παραδείγματος χάρη να αντιμετωπίσουμε όλα τα ζητήματα ψυχικής υγείας ως θέματα που σχετίζονται με την αμαρτία; ή πρέπει να συμβουλευτούμε τη σύγχρονη ψυχολογία; Σύμφωνα με τη Βίβλο, εάν οι ανησυχίες, οι φόβοι, οι καταθλίψεις και οι φοβίες είναι οι ρίζες των ψυχικών διαταραχών, τότε μόνο η *αγάπη* τις θεραπεύει απαραίτητα. Η Α΄ Επιστολή Ιωάννη (4.18) τονίζει το ίδιο σημείο:

Η τέλεια αγάπη εξαλείφει τον φόβο· επειδή,

ο φόβος έχει να κάνει με τιμωρία· και

εκείνος που φοβάται δεν έχει ακόμα

τελειοποιηθεί στην αγάπη.

——-

συμπέρασμα

Η πανάκεια για όλες τις μη βιολογικές ψυχικές διαταραχές είναι η *αγάπη.* Οι Μπητλς είχαν δίκιο όταν είπαν: «Το μόνο που χρειάζεστε είναι η αγάπη». Η B' Επιστολή προς Τιμόθεο (1.7) συμφωνεί με τα προαναφερθέντα:

Το Πνεύμα που μας έδωσε ο Θεός, δεν είναι

πνεύμα δειλίας αλλά πνεύμα δύναμης κι

αγάπης και σωφροσύνης.

Έτσι, από ψυχοθεραπευτική σκοπιά, η *αγάπη* και η *συγχώρεση* εξοπλίζουν ένα άτομο για να σπάσει τις αλυσίδες της νεύρωσης, του εθισμού και του φόβου, αποκαθιστώντας το μυαλό του στην υγεία!

(To read this article in English, click the following link: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/635864715577393152/is-sin-the-cause-of-mental-illness).

Eli of Kittim

Is Sin the Cause of Mental Illness?

By Eli Kittim ——- Christian Psychotherapy I should frame the discussion by saying at the outset that my definition of the Christian Method

——-

Why is it that both Jesus and Satan are called the “Morningstar”?

By Author Eli Kittim

In his essay, “Why is Jesus Called the ‘Morning Star’?”, author Randy Alcorn explains:

the name Morning Star is not tainted—it is

Satan who is tainted. Obviously this is the

case, or Morning Star wouldn't be used of

Christ.

Isaiah 14.12 uses the Hebrew term הֵילֵ֣ל (helel), meaning “a shining one,” to describe the great fall from heaven (Lk 10.18) of an angel who is called “ben shachar” (son of dawn or son of the morning), who is said to have weakened the nations (cf. Ezek. 28.13-17). In Christianity, this is considered to be a reference to Satan, the morning star, who at his creation possessed both great virtue and beauty but, due to pride (or ego), subsequently rebelled against God. The Septuagint (aka LXX), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, renders Isa. 14.12 as follows:

πῶς ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ

ἑωσφόρος ὁ πρωΐ ἀνατέλλων;

The Septuagint renders the Hebrew helel (Morningstar/Venus) as ἑωσφόρος (from ἕως [“dawn”] +‎ φόρος [“bearing” or “carrying”] cf. 1 Sam. 30.17; Job 3.9; Ps. 110.3 LXX). This is obviously a reference to Satan’s original status, prior to his rebellion, as “the anointed cherub” (Ezek. 28.14 KJV). Moreover, Job 38.7 suggests that angels were created before the Big Bang and were actually present to celebrate God’s creation of the universe. In fact, all the angels prior to the creation of the world were called “Morningstars” (Job 38.4-7):

Where wast thou when I laid the

foundations of the earth? . . . When the

morning stars sang together, and

all the sons of God shouted for joy . . .

Quite appropriately, the Septuagint (Job 38.7) calls these angels (ἄγγελοί) stars (ἄστρα). Interestingly enough, Jesus Christ also calls himself ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρός ὁ πρωϊνός (the bright and morning star) in Rev. 22.16. And in Rev. 2.28 Jesus promises to give the overcomers τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν πρωϊνόν (“the morning star”). What is more, Second Peter 1.19 describes regeneration or rebirth in Christ as a process in which “the morning star rises in your hearts” (NKJV). In this verse, the term Morningstar is referring to Jesus as the φωσφόρος (light-bringing; cf. John 1.4; 8.12)!

Therefore, by definition, the term Morningstar refers to a state of purity and holiness. So, it can no longer apply to Satan except insofar as it refers to his original status at the time of creation. Hence why the term Morningstar is used in the Bible as a reference to both Satan and Christ.

But there is a twist in the tale. When the King James Version of 1611 translated the Hebrew term hêylêl (Morningstar) into English, instead of using the Hebrew text or the Greek Septuagint, it used the Vulgate, a Latin translation of the Bible. However, in Latin, the term Morningstar (Venus) is “Lucifer.” That’s how the word Lucifer entered our Bible and became part of Christian folklore. But because Jesus is also called “the bright Morning Star,” in Revelation 22.16, this Latin translation introduced a semantic confusion. Given that the term “Lucifer” is inextricably linked with Satan, this Latin version of Morningstar corrupted the original meaning of the term. That’s why many modern Bible versions have gone back to using the original Hebrew term “Morningstar” or “daystar” as opposed to the Latin-based “Lucifer.” The reason is obvious. The pejorative term Lucifer can neither technically refer to Jesus nor to Satan, who is no longer a morning star!