welcome to the story.

Dr. Mapes response to my closing response and then following that is my final remarks to his closing remarks. I have heard a couple of criticisms to which I would like to respond. The first criticism is if you can not fully understand an issues (such as the pre- post- tribulation issue) than it is a waste of time to even spend any time studying it. Revelation 1.3 says "Blessed is he that readeth and they that hear the words of this prophecy." God, the Son, referring specifically to the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ said that the man who studies and reads what the Revelation contains will be blessed. Let me see . . . . God says the person is blessed who reads and hears . . . . others say it is a waste of time. Hmmm! I wonder who is right? Why do we denigrate the Scripture by saying God gave us something worthless? Seems to me that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect (complete or mature). We cannot teach the Christian message without first learning it. It is simply a sham to say that those who study the doctrines of the Bible do not care about people. You may point to the thief on the cross and say what could he have learned in such a short time? First, it is an argument from silence and those are notoriously weak. Second, he did not have to live the Christian life. You do. Third, he did not have to teach or disciple others as Jesus said in the Great Commission. You do. The second criticism that has been voiced is studying God's word leads to a dead, dry religion which does not care about the world. It is interesting to me that the greatest missionary to which the world has yet to find an equal was also a man that excelled in learning above his peers. It is also interesting that when God used a human instrument to write His Word that He chose this man to write some of the most profound Scripture in the Bible. The fideistic error that a person should live in the realm of "faith" (or at least their definition of it) and simply "be led" by the Holy Spirit has produced and is producing some serious doctrinal deviations that are well on the way to becoming heresy (The "Becoming God" article is one such example. It has grievously misinterpreted both the nature of man and the nature of God). These heresies will seriously challenge the very Gospel they claim to believe. But of what importance is that as long as there is a "fervor" present in the "worshippers." It is time we get back to the balance that the Apostle Paul had and lose the idea that learning = dead religion. Learning provides the foundation out of which comes our practical theology--no foundation, no good practical theology = people die and go to hell for lack of knowledge. When Paul wrote to the Philippians, he had a practical theology problem. Two women were fussing in the church causing division and strife and hence hindering the message of the church. Before Paul even attempts to "solve" the problem with "practical" theology, he launches into the doctrine of the incarnation in chapter 2. There he has given us some of the most profound insights on the person of Jesus Christ and what God, the Son, did for sinful man. From this foundational, doctrinal dissertation, Paul draws an incredible picture of the mind of Christ. God, the Son, for no profit of his own willingly left the exalted position of worship due to Him as God and took on the form of a human servant. If God could so willingly gave up what He rightly deserved to take a phenomenal step down for our sakes, is it not possible for Christians, who are on the same plane of existence, to give up their petty wants and desires for the benefit of the mission of the church (Notice we are not talking about giving up sound doctrine in this context, or losing sound doctrine to get along. It is simply a matter of giving up our own petty wants). Paul having laid the foundation in chapter 2 could then address the problem in chapter 4. The Church is still in need of thinking like Christ thought today In the book of Ephesians, Paul spent the first three chapters laying a solid, theological foundation before he attempted to address the practical problem of Christian behavior in the last three chapters. Somebody evidently forgot to tell Paul he was wasting his time on such matters as being in Christ, predestination, foreknowledge, sealed with the Spirit, etc. Of what value is it Paul to bring up things that cannot be fully understood? Don't you know Paul that all we have to do is just believe? Don't you know Paul that if you continue to study and address such issues you will become dry and irrelevant to the world? It is my contention that Paul's zeal was fueled by his knowledge. Paul said that knowledge for knowledge's sake results in pride (1 Cor 13.2). On the other hand, knowledge allowed Paul to know the excellency of Jesus Christ (Phil 3.8). God gave the teaching offices to the church so that the members could be perfected (Eph 4.11-13) until "we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God. If Paul thinks so highly of doctrine, why is it we do not? My response: I never said we shouldn't study to show ourselves approved nor that we shouldn't "do" theology. I believe it is a very central part of my Christian practice. As a matter of fact, I study a little over 2 hours a day and read at least one book a week. Right now I'm currently reading an 800 page systematic theology. Not for school, not for any assignment, but because I love to study and love knowledge. I'm all about studying. I'm all about being intelligent. And I'm all about theology. All I was suggesting in this post and in a previous post was that we approach theology with a little more humility and perhaps "do" theology in a different way. A way more in line with the apostle Paul, Jeremiah, and the other biblical writers. Unfortunately for us, because I do not think we see this yet, we are not approaching or "doing" theology like the ancient saints from the 1st couple of centuries. No we are "doing" theology with narrow, arrogant minds out to prove our Southern Baptist points. You said in your last paragraph that Paul spent a lot of time laying out theological foundations before he addressed the practical implications for this theology. I agree. I think we should as well. Paul is very systematic in his approach to theology. But he always comes back to the relational, narrative, incarnational side of his knowledge. But one could argue the other way as well. When you look at the book of Romans, and in specific the middle portion, say Romans 5-11, you see one of the most systematic, well laid out, structured theological discourses the church has ever seen. But then what do you see in Romans 11? The doxology where Paul writes . . . Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen." Thats how he wrapped up his systematic discourse . . . with "Whoa! Thats good stuff, but at the end of the day . . . God is so beyond me . . . so infinite . . . thats its tough for me to get a solid handle on everything. Oh the depth and the riches of studying and trying to find it and finding little pieces here and a bigger piece here, but in the end still falling short of knowing God in fullness! Thats why I can't wait to arrive in heaven because then I fully know God. Not in an entirely systematic way but in a relational, narrative, incarnational way. To him be the glory forever! Amen." In a perfect world, like the life of Paul, our knowledge should create in us a zeal for Him and the world. But sadly, it usually just leaves us in a cyclical motion with zeal for God and nothing for the world. Much like the world of the Pharisees, in-grown with their own knowledge, fattened, puffed up and good for no one but their closed door churches. And that is what a lot of our churches look like today. Sure they can tell you about predestination and their conservative, Christian eschatalogical views and they can tell you about their right-wing, Republican politics, but they can't stop long enough to wonder why there church doesn't reach people like the New Testament churches did. Look at the last 100 years of the church and our way of doing theology. Within the last 100 years this approach to theology suppressed African-Americans in our own churches less than 50 years ago. Now its homosexuals. If our knowledge was creating in us so much zeal, then how come our churches (as a whole and a majority) aren't the beacons of light that they were called to be? How come coming home from school, in a 10 mile stretch down Highway 124, can I pass 26 churches in one of the most densely populated areas in the metro? If our knowledge was doing what it was supposed to do, we wouldn't have all the schisms and divisions we have. And the rigid, arrogant mindset that keeps us from getting out of our pews and into the world. Thats why I am attempting to approach theology in a different way. A way more ancient than modern. A way more holistic than individualistic. A way more sacred than American. A way more contextual than white, suburban middle class. But I'm probably wrong in this way because the way we have approached theology and used our knowledge over the past 100 years has definitely worked real well.