One Post in Three parts -- Part one "History"

Does theology matter in Christianity today? Modern or ancient? Is there a place for ancient theology in the modern world, or is it all about a personal revelation of - and relationship to - Christ?

These are the sorts of questions that came up in a conversation recently. It began when someone I appreciate and admire said "God does not impute sin to the world because all sin was imputed into the body of Christ when he hung on the cross 2000 yrs ago."

We wound up discussing 3 separate ideas.
1) Heresy.
2) Orthodoxy.
3) History. (the relevance of)

I aim to link these three points together in one series as they each relate to the initial question, moving from broadest to narrowest. I was hoping to do them on one post, but it got too long. So much like Douglas Adams's 'Trilogy in Five Parts' this will be one post in 3 parts.

Part the First -- The relevance of History in the context of Christianity.

The objection goes something like this:
Why should I care what some dead guy said however long ago. (Subsets of that objection include: The only thing that matters is that I know Jesus for myself. Or the apostles were uneducated fishermen, and look what they did!)

The reason that so many people make that objection is that there is a kernel of truth in it. Ultimately, the most important thing is that one has a real relationship with Christ Jesus. Similarly, people have been led astray by placing too much emphasis on traditional teaching, and too little on the Bible itself. (Jesus made this point in Mark 7)

But here's the problem with that:
(Someone else dealt with the fishermen objection nicely here)
As Christians, we have beliefs that mark us as uniquely Christian. We believe in the Triune God. We believe that Christ is fully man AND fully God. That God is Creator. We believe in the Cross... Resurrection... Ascension... and Return of Christ. Heaven and Hell. We believe that there are no other Gods.

Someone might say "I just love Jesus" and I could ask, 'Tell me about him." Muslims claim to honor Jesus. So did Ghandi. Napoleon respected him. Mormons think he's Satan's younger brother. J.W.'s think of him as the highest created angelic being, but not divine. Many call him a "good man", or "good teacher", but not deity.

Christians reject these false Christs and the false gospels that go with them. We need precision language to lay out the differences between the counterfeits and the faithful. It is important that Jesus had both human and Divine natures. It affects Redemption. It matters that he lived a sinless life. That he rose from death and did not merely "swoon".

Hebrews 5:12 makes the connection between having a developed walk with God, and the ability to teach others. Teach them what? The gospel? Yes! Does that mean John 3:16 only? No! Or else, God would not have needed to give us more than that. Like every other aspect of our maturity, our walk with God becomes more developed. More able to take the eternal truth from Biblical patterns, and apply them to life wherever we may find ourselves. Compare Romans 12:2.

Paul didn't rely on complex arguments to win people to Christ, he preached the Gospel. BUT you can be sure that Paul (among others) DID use complex arguments (even Peter said Paul was difficult to follow) to bring those young believers to maturity. So that they would have a robust understanding of Christ's person and work. Many would, after all, be killed for what they believed. It is best that you have a firm grasp of it.

Sure, we like the Bible. It's those other guys we don't care about. Those stuffy religious types.
There is something distasteful about assuming other peoples' faith and walk with God are inferior to yours. Oh, right. It's sin. (James 4:11) There are cultural differences, differences in style and liturgy. But those are not measurements of how well a person does or doesn't know God.

You like the Bible, you said? Ok, then, what was the purpose of the gifts mentioned in Eph 4?
The gifts: apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher.
They were given. By whom? By Christ.
For what purpose? That the body be built up. That we become mature. That we are solid, and not blown around by every wind and wave. There is mutual interdependence involved.
So the people that do these things are a gift by God to His Church? Because HE wants to accomplish HIS purposes?
So then, if people who were Ephesian 4 gifts to the Church write books, can we not profit from reading them? Does the same Spirit who informs me, also inform believers who lived before me? Can we not read C.S. Lewis, or Torrey, or Moody, or Spurgeon, or Luther, or Anselm, or Chrysostom, or Ignatius?

Put it another way -- do you refuse the wisdom of those in your church? Are you too "spiritual" to be instructed by those you know? How about others you admire? Do you read books, or listen to podcasts of your favorite preachers? How is that different?

TIME. That's the real objection, right? People from "back then" couldn't possibly have anything helpful to say about people today... could they? I Cor 10:13. The tricks and traps that lie in wait for the faithful today, whether sin, or deceptions are all recycled. They are adapted to new environments, but they are nothing new "under the sun". Frankly, there is safety in reading old books. Lewis said it this way:

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.

Since the tricks and traps the enemy uses today were already in circulation as far back as Plato's day (Atheism, Sophistry, Materialism, Relativism, etc) why not find out how they were shut down before?

Which is wisdom? To find the ways people before us successfully refuted problems that still exist today, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Or to stubbornly start from scratch and try to find a way to counter the work of the enemy?

Additionally, there is safety in comparing your understanding of Scripture to the historical consensus... it helps filter out a lot of loopy ideas. If your "personal revelation" is not supported by faithful students of God's Word from earlier generations, do your homework and MAKE DARNED SURE that the Bible really says what you think it does.

But I'm getting a little ahead of myself.

(Next post in the series here ---->)