I think I've figured out what the real brick wall for me is. The Bible seems impossible to understand.
Take call-in radio host T---, and call-in radio show host, Steve Gregg, for instance.
I don't know Steve quite as well as T---, but I think I know them both well enough to say they're both of equal intelligence and both have been exhaustively studying and teaching the Bible for good length of time. They're about the same age. They both have roots in Calvary Chapel. Yet they have diametrically opposing viewpoints.
T--- believes you can't lose your salvation, Steve believes you can (then there‘s that seeming catch 22 that so-and-so may have never really been saved to begin with).
T--- believes the Book of Revelation applies to the future, Steve believes it applies to the past.
T--- believes in eternal torment of the unsaved, Steve doesn't.
And I’m sure the list is more extensive than that. Both these men have studied and studied and studied for years and years and years. I don't see that one is any more enlightened than the other, one is better educated than the other, one has spent more time studying than the other, one is smarter than the other. What other conclusion can I come up with than either the Bible is impossible to understand or it doesn't make sense?
Now, while it's true both of them probably agree on who Jesus is. There's other people out there equal to Steve and T---, in respect to intelligence, study time and methods etc., who don't. One person will say Jesus is co-equal but separate from the Father. Another will say Jesus is one of three roles of one being i.e. you're a parent, a husband and a teacher. Another will say Jesus is a separate being created by the Father.
Someone will say to me, "well, you have to study your Bible such-and-such a way using hermeneutics, context etc, etc, etc over and over while constantly praying for guidance from the Holy Spirit" (as if there aren't multiple beliefs on who or what the Holy Spirit is). Well, that's exactly what hundreds of people of generally equal intelligence study time and methods have done, and they've come up with innumerable diametrically opposed interpretations regarding anything and everything.
Of course what really makes it all extra fun, is how many people will tell me I’ll spend eternity screaming in agony if I don’t get it right…or not. How am I supposed to keep my sanity? (I've already suffered a nervous breakdown over belief/faith/religion/theology, et al, and am currently on two different medications because of it).
B---
Hi B---,
There is a difference between being "undecided" about a thing, on the one hand, and being "confused" about it, on the other. The second could possibly lead to a nervous breakdown. The first does not necessarily even lead to discomfort.
It seems that uncertainty, or indecision, could lead to confusion if a person feels some particular urgency about understanding some subject about which insufficient information was presently available. The perceived urgency might stem from one of two possible factors:
1) the perception that an immediate grasp of the subject is essential either to the acquiring of some indispensable benefit, or to the avoidance of some serious harm; or
2) a dislike for long-term learning—leading one to insist on understanding today everything that one hopes ever to understand, so as not to have to ever learn anything in the future.
Now, I can't see why gaining a correct understanding of the meaning of Revelation, or of the exact fate of the lost, or even of the question of unconditional security, would be seen as an immediate necessity (or even an eventual necessity!) by one who has made a commitment to follow Jesus forever. That person is not in danger of sharing the fate of the wicked, nor of doing anything that compromises the security of his salvation, nor of being unprepared to face whatever the future may hold.
Even seemingly-more-important theological concerns, like that of gaining a full understanding of the exact relationship of Christ and the Father, does not seem to be an urgent requirement—or else we should have expected Jesus to waste no time in sitting down with His disciples and giving them lessons about that subject (which we have no record of His ever doing).
It seems to me that loving God with all your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself, and determining to follow Jesus and trust God, are all matters that do not require sophisticated theological understanding. More detailed, and more accurate, knowledge can be gained along the road, so long as we are continuing to shoulder His yoke and to learn from Him.
Getting us obsessed with side issues is a distracting strategy of the devil—and is probably one kind of idolatry. We will learn our theology at Jesus' feet, if we remain in proximity by an active pursuit. The Holy Spirit will lead true disciples, eventually, into all truth—though it will be at His chosen rate, not ours. Our study of the scriptures is essential, but we will gain true understanding no faster than the Holy Spirit chooses to grant us His insights.
As for the differences in opinion between Bible teachers of equal intelligence and dedication, this need not be so astonishing either. There is more to the enterprise of learning than mere intelligence. There is the additional gauge of a man's desire to learn—even, if necessary, at the cost of a potentially humbling change of mind on matters that one has defended publicly! This is the factor sometimes called "teachableness," which is a specie of humility, or at least of meekness. None of us is free from pride, prejudice and preference in his studies. Where any of these factors are interfering with our objectivity, even superior intelligence cannot help us over hurdles found in a milieu of controversy.
The more a man has publicly declared his views on a subject—even to the point of defending them against rival viewpoints—the more tempted he will be to remain of the same mind and to increasingly demonize other viewpoints (a practice which is usually a sure sign of personal insecurity). Once this attitude has been adopted, both prejudice and pride tend to guarantee that the affected man will do no further learning on the topic in question. The waters are often further muddied by any of the following:
1. If a man is a religious professional, hired by an institution that expects him to toe the party line, he has much more reason to remain narrow-minded and unteachable;
2. If a man admires (and possibly wishes to please) well-known personalities, or denominational superiors, that are associated with one side of a controversial question, this can lock him into a poorly-supported viewpoint, out of which he could otherwise easily find his way;
3. If a man feels that changing his mind will cause him to appear to be wishy-washy, or unstable, in the eyes of his audience or his congregation, and thinks that "standing strong" means never changing his mind to accommodate better information, then he is not likely even to give a fair hearing to viewpoints rivaling his own.
When you consider that most public ministers have one or more of these factors putting pressure upon them to conform, it removes any sense of mystery as to why professional ministers (regardless of their theological persuasion) rarely see themselves as being in error, and, hence, rarely grow beyond the understanding they derived from their earliest teachers.
I don't know whether this will alleviate any of your angst on this matter, but I thought I would share this perspective in the hopes of helping out. God bless you, Brother! It was good meeting you on Saturday.
In Jesus,
Steve
