Both of your metaphors, the rocket leaving Earth’s gravity and Jesus’ call to childlike faith, hit right at the heart of what grace is meant to produce in us. You painted a beautiful picture.
Your observation about the “porthole effect” is convicting and spot-on. It’s so easy when we are newly grounded in a truth to assume our current elevation gives us the right to direct everyone else’s flight plan! You captured that pull of spiritual pride brilliantly. One of which I fear I was once guilty of.
I especially appreciated how you tied the Beatitudes of Matthew 5 to the childlike posture of Matthew 18:3. Viewing poverty of spirit, meekness, and peacemaking not as high-level achievements for “spiritual adults,” but as the simple, natural traits of a child resting in their Father’s care. Daddy said so, so it is truth. As you noted from Philippians 1:6 and Psalm 127:1, resting in His ability to grow and guard His children lifts an enormous, self-imposed burden off our shoulders.
While we rest in childlike trust regarding each other’s growth, Paul also encourages us in Ephesians 4:15
“Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,”
And in 1 Corinthians 14:20
“Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.”
Thank you again for the wisdom and the gentle reminder to simply enjoy the ride and take orders from the Father.
That’s interesting. It was about 35 yrs ago that I was driven to my knees and cried out to the Jesus I knew when I was 6 yrs old. The Jesus I ran from in my impetuous and rebellious youth, and returned to as an adult.
And I have spent the next 35+ years getting to know Him.
There is nothing inherently wrong with intellectualism, nor with pursuing theological knowledge and wrestling with complex questions. In fact, Scripture repeatedly commends the pursuit of wisdom, understanding, discernment, and knowledge. The danger is not becoming intellectually capable. The danger is becoming intellectually proud.
I would also be careful about presenting simplicity as though it is necessarily superior to complexity. Some truths of Scripture are wonderfully simple, while others require considerable thought, comparison, and careful exegesis. Peter himself acknowledged that some things in Paul’s writings are “hard to be understood” (2 Peter 3:16). The biblical answer to difficult things is not to avoid them, but to study them carefully.
Paul tells Timothy to “study to shew thyself approved unto God” and to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). Proverbs tells us to “incline thine ear unto wisdom” and “apply thine heart to understanding” (Proverbs 2:2). We are also told to “prove all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and to be “ready always to give an answer” (1 Peter 3:15).
So I certainly agree that we need to guard against “itchy ears” (2 Timothy 4:3–4). But we should also guard against the opposite error, where a suspicion of intellectualism becomes an excuse for remaining uninformed or intellectually passive.
Humility does not mean knowing less. It means knowing what we know, recognizing what we do not know, and being willing to submit everything we think we know to the authority of Scripture.
There is nothing particularly virtuous about remaining ignorant. The biblical goal is not stupidity with humility, but wisdom with humility.
Keep on studying comparative theologies, we are in the end times.
2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
“speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to understand” What things? (1) Revelation (cf. 2Pe_3:2); (2) the last days (2Pe_3:3-4 a); (3) creation (2Pe_3:4-5); (4) the flood of Noah (2Pe_3:6); (5) judgment day (2Pe_3:7; 2Pe_3:10); (6) God’s time (2Pe_3:9); (7) the Second Coming (2Pe_3:12); (8) the new age of righteousness (2Pe_3:12-13); (9) personal salvation (2Pe_3:14 a, 15a); (10) godly living (2Pe_3:11; 2Pe_3:14 b); or (11) something in chapter one or two?
Whatever it was the false teachers misunderstood it and twisted it to their own ruin. In this sense it is possibly Paul’s emphasis on salvation as a free gift from God apart from human works of righteousness (i.e., justification by faith). It is possible that James (cf. Jas_2:14-26) corrects another misunderstanding of Paul’s preaching.
"which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures"It is helpful to me to realize that the Apostles who personally walked with Jesus for several years did not always understand Him (cf. Mar_9:32; Luk_2:50; Luk_9:45; Luk_18:34; Joh_2:22; Joh_10:6; Joh_12:16; Joh_16:18). Neither did all the Apostles understand the writings of other Apostles. We are called to be a faithful witness and godly covenant brother! None of us understands all things.
Or…
2 Peter was written because Peter was confronting false teachers who had entered the Christian communities and were undermining the apostolic teaching, particularly concerning the certainty of Christ’s return and the coming judgment of God. The immediate issue becomes explicit in 2 Peter 3:3–4: “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming?” Their denial of Christ’s coming was not merely an innocent misunderstanding of eschatology. Peter connects their teaching with their immoral conduct and describes them as people driven by their own lusts.
Peter has already spent chapter 2 describing these men. They are false teachers who secretly introduce destructive heresies, deny the Lord, follow corrupt ways, indulge the flesh, despise authority, and entice others through sensuality and greed. In other words, their doctrine and their conduct were connected. Their rejection of future judgment served their present manner of life. If Christ is not returning and there is no coming judgment, then their sinful conduct becomes much easier to justify.
Peter therefore answers their argument by taking them back to creation and the flood. The scoffers deliberately overlook the fact that God created the heavens and the earth by His word and that He subsequently judged the ancient world through the flood. Peter’s point is that God’s apparent delay does not mean that His promise has failed. The same God who once judged the world will judge the present heavens and earth. “The heavens and the earth, which are now,” Peter says, are “reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (2 Peter 3:7).
This explains Peter’s statement that “the Lord is not slack concerning his promise” (3:9). The apparent delay is not evidence that Christ will not return. It is evidence of God’s patience. Peter says that the Lord is “longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Whatever questions we may have about the precise meaning of “all,” Peter’s immediate point is clear: God’s delay should be understood in terms of His patience and His saving purpose, not as evidence that His promise has failed.
Then we arrive at the remarkable statement about Paul in 2 Peter 3:15–16. Peter says, “Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you.” Peter does not set Paul against himself. He calls Paul “our beloved brother” and acknowledges that Paul was given wisdom. Peter then says that Paul wrote about “these things.” The immediate context strongly suggests that Peter has in view matters associated with the Lord’s patience, salvation, His coming, and the eschatological judgment that Peter has been discussing throughout the chapter.
Peter then makes an important admission: “in which are some things hard to be understood.” That does not mean Paul’s teaching was wrong or contradictory. It means that some of Paul’s teaching was difficult. The danger came when the “untaught and unstable” took those difficult things and twisted them.
The Greek verb translated “wrest” or “distort” is στρεβλόω, which carries the idea of twisting or perverting something. These people were taking Paul’s writings and bending them to support their own ideas. Peter’s concern, therefore, is not that Paul was unclear in everything he taught, nor that Paul’s doctrine was suspect. His concern is that people who are spiritually unstable can take even genuine apostolic teaching and distort it.
Maybe you can elaborate since the slap on the wrist did not go unnoticed.
The old question (and weak answer)
This is not a new concern, obviously. It’s one that’s been raised for decades. In fact, there are dozens of books addressing it from all kinds of angles available at your local Christian bookstore (and more published every year). And this was one of the attractive qualities of what was once called the Emergent Church. Its voices made it feel safe for the average Boomer and Generation X-aged Christian to ask these questions. (Unfortunately, there seemed to be a bit less comfort with finding answers.)
The tendency was to embrace a transformed view of the Bible, seeing it as a multi-colored, multifaceted document. A book depicting one people group’s evolving understanding of God, if you will. One we couldn’t really trust, even if we respected and honored it, because who can say what it really says, given the difficulties of textual transmission, and early church politics.
Read it, yes. Respect it, definitely. But rely on it… not so much. You can’t know what it says.[1. This has been the drum Bart Ehrman has been beating since the 1980s, for example.] If we can’t know for certain our gospel articulations today are identical in meaning to those of Christ and the apostles,[2. As Brian McLaren outright said we cannot a number of years ago.] if we cannot know the Bible we have today contains the same message it did when its various parts were first written, we should not be so arrogant as to presume there is one correct meaning or interpretation.
We can have opinions, but not definite or certain knowledge.
The good news about presuppositions and God’s planning
Regardless of the fact that we most definitely all do bring our own baggage to the table (along with our coffee and phone for a lovely Instagram photo), we shouldn’t take jump on the relativism square of the ol’ conclusions mat too quickly here. Because here’s the thing: yes, we have baggage. Yes, we have presuppositions. But even so, we should be able to have some idea of whether or not we can know anything in the Bible with any degree of certainty.
And here’s the good news: We can. Why? Because God planned for our presuppositions, too.
See, what Protestants have historically believed about the Bible is summarized in the phrase sola scriptura—Scripture alone is our authority for doctrine and life. It is the norming norm, as it were. Other authorities, such as tradition, church leaders, and voices from outside the church are not invalid, but they don’t hold the primary place. They are subordinate to and corrected by the Bible. The Word of God.
And inherent in this idea of sola scriptura is the belief that, while yes we do have to take into account our presuppositions, Scripture is actually pretty clear in all the essential things it says. Maybe not equally clear in all areas (after all, Peter said some of what Paul wrote was hard to understand), but basically clear.
The fancy word for this is perspicuity. And, really, all this means is we believe the Bible is basically clear on the essentials—so much so that even our presuppositions (unless our presupposition is the Bible is impossible to actually understand) can’t even mess us up so badly that we can’t know who God is and what he has done with any reasonable degree of confidence.
Think about it: yes, presuppositions can be a problem. But what do Christians believe about God? Fundamentally, we believe he wants to make himself known to his creation. This means he’s not going to shroud himself in mystery to the degree that he is completely unknowable in any meaningful way. And he does make himself known. Creation practically screams of his existence, according to Romans 1. What can be known about him is plain to all—the problem is we are blind.
And that’s where we have some good news, too. Because God wants to be known—he wants his people to know him—he does something pretty radical: he gives us his Spirit. And the Holy Spirit, our comforter and helper, is the One who helps us to understand what we read in the Bible.
And this was God’s plan. This is how he planned to deal with our presuppositions. He sent his Spirit to live within us, to be our teacher. He is the one who helps us understand the Scriptures, gives us a desire to submit to what we learn within its pages, and works through it to transform us into the image of Christ.
Perhaps I should have used the word " indifferent"
I am ( or at least was ) very familiar with the development of the various competing doctrines.
Today, my religion is simply coming to the aid of " widows" and " orphans" whenever I can, in whatever way I can.
I’m becoming increasingly indifferent to religion and politics.
I’ll leave you with a quote from one of my favorites;
" But here is the Bible itself greatly wronged. It nowhere lays claim to be regarded as " the Word, the Way, the Truth". The Bible leads us to Jesus, the inexhaustible, the unfolding Revelation of God. It is Christ " in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge " not the Bible, save as leading to Him"
Sometimes I imagine that I’m walking into the sheepfold of The Good Shepherd, where like minds bleat in unison, expecting still waters that mumble “Come, drink deeply”, and rolling verdant pastures call out, “here sheep may safely graze”, only to open my eyes and find I’ve stumbled into a boxing ring in the middle of round three. In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny: ““I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque!”
Perhaps the problem is not that you stumbled into a boxing ring, but that you expected the sheepfold to be a sanctuary for your own comfort. Christ did not call His sheep to wander about bleating in agreement with one another. He called them to hear His voice, obey His Word, endure correction, and contend for the truth. If every challenge feels like a fight, perhaps the issue is not the Shepherd’s sheep, but your unwillingness to be corrected. We are not called to protect our feelings from Scripture. We are called to submit our feelings to Scripture. The sheepfold is not a place where “like minds” congratulate one another. It is a place where the Shepherd has authority. And when His Word cuts against us, the faithful sheep bow their heads rather than blame the sheepfold.
And we certainly have a few Looneys here. The only difference is that Bugs Bunny at least knew when he had taken a wrong turn. Some people can take the wrong turn, drive for miles, and then insist the road itself is the problem.
Rom_10:17-19. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel know?
Did not the Jewish people have a time of hearing and instruction? Certainly they knew, and they knew also that the gospel was not to be confined to them. They had a warning that it should even be taken from them and sent to other nations.
This exposition consisted of readings from Isa_42:1-17; Isa_43:18-25; Rom_10:1-19.
Rom_10:12-13. For the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
This was the old prophecy of Joel. The Jews knew it. It is the new teaching of the gospel. The Gentiles know it. Oh! who would not wish to be in that broad “whosoever,” that he might find salvation?
When you strip away explicit theological definitions, you gain freedom from dogma, but you also lose the guardrails that protect against error and exploitation.
If a person remains “theologically agnostic,” who defines who Jesus is or what His commandments actually demand? Without a firm theological framework, “love your neighbor” can be hijacked to mean almost anything. From passive enablement to extreme authoritarian control.
Cults and predatory religious movements thrive in theological ambiguity. When leaders say, “Don’t worry about complex doctrine, just focus on love and obedience,” they often replace historical Christian orthodoxy with their own personal authority. Doctrine acts as a constitutional check on authority.
Historically, Christianity defined its creeds (like the Nicene Creed) specifically because different groups were claiming the name of Christ while teaching wildly contradictory things. Theological precision was invented to protect the core truth from being diluted or weaponized. Total theological agnosticism leaves an open door for misinterpretation. If everything is subjective, “truth” becomes whatever the individual wants it to be.
You took my allegorical statement of my personal feelings, and instantiated what I was saying into a near-perfect example. In contrariness to unmerited grace, you demonstrated unwarranted poetic pugilism; thereby proving my point. Thanx again for the assist.
This is probably unwise of me, but allow me to invite your slap on my other cheek.
You fantasized…
You are mostly right, a place of rest for our souls is what our Savior promised, and so what I expected His sheepfold to be. (Matt 11:29-30)
Your position is:
He actually did:
Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. (John 17:11)
"I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. John (17:20-23)
The apostle reiterates the call of Jesus:
I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love,
endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph 4:1-5)
You teach:
Yes, Good point. Listen, obey, love correction, and agonize (epagōnizomai) for the faith. Great reminder. Still, nothing in here about unwarranted attacks on other sheep. But, you do you.
You hypothesize:
(a), every challenge is not a fight, nor does it feel that way to me. (b) I am more than willing, but I actually welcome correction. The personal feelings metaphor that I related to another brother (not to you) were not about ME “fighting”, but about being in an arena of fighting.
You admonish:
I really don’t understand where this comment comes from. Who is protecting their feelings from scripture? Is that what you think I’m doing? Sorry, but I’m at a loss here.
You emphasize:
This positional statement of correction implies that I was suggesting something opposite to this. Your description of the sheepfold sounds more like a military base, or a correctional facility to me. I’m sure that’s not how you intended it to come across.
And your closing remarks:
I’m just going to let this statement speak for you.
Begone mate, not interested in your verbal diarrhea. I can discern passive rebellion even in someone who claims to be ‘“copiously Spirit-filled”
.πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου - “full of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:3, 6:5, 7:55, 11:24)
ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου - “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4)
πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι - “be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18)
But there is nothing in the Greek text equivalent to “copiously Spirit-filled.”
“Copiously” adds a quantitative idea, essentially suggesting that you have an abundant or excessive measure of the Spirit, and that is not what the Greek terminology itself says.
Are you referring to the the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of AD 381, which expanded and revised the 325 creed?
homoousios
“the express image of his person”
The Greek is χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, literally something like “the exact imprint of his hypostasis.
Heb 1:3 who being the radiance of the glory, and impression of his essence, and bearing the whole by the word of his power, by himself [a cleansing making] of our sins, he sat at the right of the greatness in heights;
Heb 1:3 who, ὃς being ὢν [the] radiance ἀπαύγασμα of [His] τῆς glory δόξης and καὶ [the] exact expression χαρακτὴρ of τῆς His αὐτοῦ, substance, ὑποστάσεως and τε upholding φέρων - τὰ all things πάντα by the τῷ power δυνάμεως of τῆς His αὐτοῦ, word, ῥήματι through ‹δι’› having made ποιησάμενος [the] purification καθαρισμὸν - τῶν of sins, ἁμαρτιῶν sat down ἐκάθισεν at ἐν [the] right hand δεξιᾷ of the τῆς Majesty Μεγαλωσύνης on ἐν high, ὑψηλοῖς,
Heb 1:3 Who being the Shechinah zohar (brilliance) of Hashem and the exact impress and demut of Hashem’s essential nature, being, and reality, and sustaining everything by his Dvar HaKo’ach, after he made tihur (purification) of chatta’im (sins), sat down at LIMIN (“the right hand” TEHILLIM 110:1) of the Majesty on High.
