Fundamentalism vs. Theopneusticism
Which System serves the Christian Faith?
Introduction
The Christian faith in its modern state has become too reliant upon the Bible as a means for absolute justification. The doctrine of biblical inerrancy has become a major flaw in Christianity concerning thought, focus, and practice. In my case for Christian mysticism (or theopneusticism), I defend the importance of personal revelation and inspired philosophy within Spirit-filled believers. I don’t recommend to dispose of the apostolic scriptures, nor the writings of the Fathers. This is not an attempt to wholly reject the scriptures, but to wholly reject the notion of inerrancy. As for the defendant of inerrancy (a core doctrine of fundamentalism), it affirms itself upon the assumption of both sola/prima scriptura and also the perspicuity of scripture.
[This is a response to various statements against Christian mysticism].
The Dispute of Systems
The grand issue of Christian fundamentalism is the neglect of practicing moral and spiritual discernment. This system relies upon circular reasoning that cannot be justified and embraced. This system relies upon bias and intellectual dishonesty to the text in face of evidence, scrutiny, and philosophy. Fundamentalism has the tendency to encourage blind and presupposed faith, burden others to obsolete and detrimental practices, and deceive individuals into philosophical nonsense. It’s a rigid system that when alternative perspectives (i.e. science, history, actual vs. traditional translations) are brought to contrast its beliefs, those who attest to it either leave the faith, or refuse the given evidence. Although, some adjust to these notions, yet they might still adhere to inerrancy as a core belief. Christian fundamentalism doesn’t encourage individual thought and progressive flexibility, but rather compels indoctrination and rigidity. In regard to morality, it obscures essential morals by the justification of retribution, polygamy, patriarchy, and the distortion of God’s appearance in the Old Testament. Christian fundamentalism also confuses the Bible as the very oracles of God, except the Bible is a record of competing views or narratives about God. We cannot assume that Job’s friends were speaking on behalf of God, nor that the Chronicler was in full agreement with the account of Samuel concerning Saul’s actions (1 Samuel 28:6 and 1 Chronicles 10:14). Also, it is absurd to assume the perspicuity of scripture since there are various cultural barriers in the text, including foreign linguistics and imperfect translations. Even the apostle Peter affirmed that all the epistles of Paul aren’t easy to fathom, so men can twist it due to ignorance and moral instability (2nd Peter 3:15, 16). Again, it is absurd for God to limit His truths or voice to a book full of cultural barriers, valid contradictions, imperfect translations, manuscript variants, and ambiguity. If the Bible requires someone to defend it without itself appealing to simplicity and perspicuity, then it seems a foreign and bias standard is being imposed onto the text.
The superiority of theopneusticism is its appeal to rational philosophy and its pursuit in communion with God, which is the highest goal of a Christian. This system is aware of the competition of values found in the Bible, and the self-evident contrast of Jesus (perfect expression of God) and Yahweh (not the exact image of God). The theopneustic approach not only encourages a progressive (not political liberalism) and flexible mindset, but also it is more scriptural and patristic than fundamentalism. The grand pillar of a Christian is sapient (inspired) philosophy and revelatory intimacy with God. The apostle Paul expected believers to be guided by the Spirit of wisdom and revelations in Ephesians 1:17. This was the normative approach of a believer, instead of a fixation in defending inerrancy. In regard to morality, the moral essentials are self-evident and coherent to the life of Jesus, instead of subjective and theistic moralism (i.e. god is entitled to X because he’s god). Evil and nonsense can be justified in the name of God, which leads to theistic and moral subjectivity. This also explains why Calvinism, Eternal Torment, and Patriarchy are defended by fundamentalists due to the belief of theistic and moral subjectivity. Instead of the excessive and literal interpretation of the Bible, what is advocated is the allegorical and inspired interpretation of the scriptures. In certain passages, the allegorical perspective is recommended instead of absolute literalism that sometimes leads to theological nonsense and immoral exemplars. This is to say that the literal interpretation of a certain passage is only rejected if nonsense, or moral malpractice is encouraged.
Honest Criticism: Fundamental or Theopneustic Support?
“How is theopnustosticism more scriptural than fundamentalism? Paul says, ‘Do not go beyond what is written’ and Revelation says, ‘Do not add or take away’. Personal revelation cannot be necessary if scripture is the word of God.”
The Bible needs to be read in its original context and not assumed to be a universal and timeless mandate for believers; for instance, he tells them to cease in fornication and shames them for not knowing God. The apostle wasn’t aware of any scriptural canon, but he was most likely referring to the Corinthian creed. Why? Because the divisive Corinthians were arrogant in gaining sophisticated and spiritual knowledge, so he refers them back to the creed to unite them under basic knowledge of Jesus. This is why Paul says that he could not speak to them as spiritual but as carnal. As for Revelation, John is not aware of any scriptural canon, instead he is only referring to his own book, that it should not be tampered in anyway (omission or forgery). John made this warning to the Romans, so that they would be dissuaded from tampering with his letters to the Churches. No principle favoring sola scriptura or canonical dictation should be derived from these verses or any verse that I lack mentioning.
The Bible cannot be assumed to be the ‘word of God’ since this title is exclusive to Jesus alone, and this fundamentalist assumption leads to exegetical and doctrinal confusion. Jesus states a certain scriptural passage as being from the oracle of God, but not as the oracle of God. And He states this passage or writing rather than asserting that all scriptures are derived from the word of God (John 10:35). He also says that this writing by the Psalmist cannot be ignored or dismissed, because they trust the inspiration of the Psalmist. This is an appeal to using their trust sources against them; He appeals to the Torah towards the Sadducees because they only trusted the Torah (not the Prophets) for inspiration (Mark 12:26, 27). Anyway, the scriptures do testify to personal revelation. The apostle intercedes for the Ephesians to have the wisdom and revelations of God to understand their own individual callings, which the Bible is incapable of doing since ecclesiastical gifts are elected by God alone (Ephesians 1:17–19; 4:11). In Corinthians, not only does Paul shame some for not knowing God, but also he encourages them to fellowship with the Holy Spirit which is Christian mysticism (2nd Corinthians 13:14). In fact, Paul provides a detailed account about a mature and spiritual Christian judging spiritual matters and knowing spiritual concepts solely upon the Spirit and the mind of Christ (1st Corinthians 2:13–16). In Thessalonians, Paul decides not to teach them about brotherly love because they were taught by God directly, which reveals that scripture isn’t the sole guide for faith and morals (1st Thessalonians 4:9). John reveals to them that inspiration given by the Spirit will potentially teach them all truth, and that they have no need of anyone else to teach them (1st John 2:27). For Catholics and Orthodox, Wisdom 9:16, 17 asserts that the will of God can be known if God’s wisdom and Holy Spirit is given to them. The Lord Jesus reveals in the gospel that aionion life is to know God experientially, and that everyone has the potentiality and eventuality of being taught by God (John 6:45; 17:3). I would testify that personal revelation from God taught me the essential focus of the faith, and made me wiser than those who solely study the Bible. This is not an assertion of pride, because God is to be credited for such wisdom and guidance. And I know God desires this same result within all believers and all humans. The scriptures aren’t accessible to every believer to this day, but the Spirit alone is competent in guiding believers into moral and doctrinal maturity.
Scripture vs. Philosophy and Revelation
“How can philosophy be required when scripture advises against it (Colossians 2:8)? The Scriptures must be dominant over philosophy and personal revelation lest we stumble in error. How do you perceive the scriptures — to be lower or above theopneustic philosophy/revelation?”
First of all, Paul uses Greek philosophers to bring a theological truth into light. And second, he doesn’t admonish against all philosophy, but only that which is full of deceit and empty (impractical I assume). Atheism and nihilism would be detrimental philosophies, but even fundamentalism is a philosophy I’m sure Paul would instruct against. To advise against philosophy is self-refuting because this is a work of philosophy. The famous Stephen Hawking makes the same mistake as many others might as well. If Paul condemns philosophy in general, then he must condemn the notion of God. While having a fundamentalist mindset, the scriptures shouldn’t be assumed to be dominant over other sources of truth like science or philosophy. Even if the scriptures are taken as foremost, people stumble into errors regardless and assume every statement in the Bible to be a divine utterance (though they aren’t). In fact, Martin Luther presumed there was a celestial ocean above the sky, which he derived from the account of Genesis. And despite the scientific evidence, he simply deluded himself with the scriptures. But some modern fundamentalists try to argue that Genesis meant “rain in the sky” except the text says that the waters are above the sky instead of in the sky (Genesis 1:7). Please, don’t try to save the text to conform to fundamentalism. If the waters are above the firmament (i.e. sky), then it cannot be rain within the clouds.
The scriptures ought to be seen as something binary. They aren’t always divinely inspired, nor are they always humanly composed. The inspired scriptures are seen in equal measure to theopneustic philosophy and revelation. Why? Because I believe the same Spirit that influenced Paul also inspires me as well as the church fathers. The church fathers like Clement of Rome or Gregory of Nyssa saw inspiration within themselves or on others. Inspiration wasn’t exclusive to the scriptures, instead it was seen as being inclusive to others. The fundamental forces for inspiration are sacred wisdom and revelation given by God. The scriptures are neither prima nor sola, but equa (Latin word for ‘equal’) in this regard. Though some contend that our revelations could contradict the gospel, except there are some things in the Bible that already do this. Whether you silence women from teaching, or impose a fundamentalist standard, you are already adding to the gospel that only defiles it. Or the idea of Penal Substitution being a major flaw in mixing with the gospel due to passages being wrongly perceived as reliable. The Pharisees tampered with the Hebrew Masoretic text, and we have this text in our bibles, and many wrongly assume that these forged statements are divine utterances (or at least accurate reports of God’s inspiration). The Greek Septuagint retains more accuracy and antiquity than the Hebrew Masoretic version. Anyway, I hold to the view of equa scriptura instead of the sola or prima rule. But I tell you, my personal revelations haven’t made me deny Christ, but affirm His existence even more. And these personal revelations from God have inspired me to engage philosophically instead of blindly trusting the scriptures as some infallible text. It is not God’s intent that we should be philosophically disabled, because we can be swayed by destructive notions about God. Because of fundamentalism, some of these Christians will justify blatant evils and nonsense in the name of God. This mindset leads to theistic and moral subjectivity that these people claim to be objective standards. In this case, they are no better than atheists that they accuse to be moral relativists. In fundamentalism, morality is relative to this deity’s wishes instead of acting in accordance to His own nature. The wisdom and revelations of God are superior guides to the believer in Christ instead of appealing to sola scriptura or prima scripura. This is also why Paul recommended holy inspiration to the churches of God, because if the Holy Spirit taught the Thessalonians (4:9) to love their neighbors while not requiring Paul’s address, then we can as believers love others without any scriptural dependence. We should cease in doubting the Lord’s potential in guiding us.
The Heart Is Only Wicked (but no!)
“The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9).
The major flaw within fundamentalism is the tendency to believe that we cannot learn moral or theological truths apart from the Bible. This above verse is utilized to hinder productive thought and destroy intimacy with God, because the heart is too wicked to reach sapient thought or undefiled communion with God. But this assertion is false. Jeremiah 17:9, 10 in the Greek Septuagint (again the better manuscript) says, “The heart is deep beyond all things, and it is the man, and who can know him? I, the Lord, try the hearts, and prove the reins, to give to every one according to his ways, and according to the fruits of his devices.” If you deny the accuracy of this manuscript, then let me argue the context of this verse. The heart is unknowable which explains the question of “who can know him,” because if the heart is noticeably wicked, then the question is meaningless. Also, the next verse says that the Lord searches the heart because it is unknowable or deep beyond all things. God knows the heart (cardiognosis) according to Acts 15:8 and Hebrews 4:12, 13. But in honesty, the Lord gave everyone the capacity to reason alongside Him. We can reason with God in His wisdom and in His revelatory knowledge (Jeremiah 33:3; Isaiah 1:18a), so the Bible shouldn’t be seen as the sole source for truth and wisdom.
Someone might oppose logic in favor of faith and revelation, except this is absurd. The Lord Jesus is compared to the Logos in John 1:1, which can be understood as Christ having the title of ‘Logic’. And by adhering to wise logic or sapient thought, we are ministering the mind of Christ, or siding with God through His logical wisdom. The same goes for His Spirit, because when we side with personal revelation that bears more fruit than a biblical assertion, we are siding with His Spirit. The apostles like Paul or John weren’t against sacred inspiration and for only scripture, but they seem to advocate for sacred inspiration (i.e. sapient logic and sacred revelation). If we side with the false notions of God from the O.T. more than His wisdom and revelations guiding our minds, then we are neglecting the mind of Christ, opposing the teaching of the Spirit, and settling for empty deceit and vain philosophies. By the Lord’s wisdom and revelations, we can deduce moral truths and know spiritual truths without relying on the Bible. It’s because of fundamentalism that some Christians force victims to remain in an abusive marriage since Jesus offered no other reason for divorce at that moment. We should remember that Jesus doesn’t always speak in absolutes, but speaks circumstantially and partially. If you don’t divorce your abusive spouse, you are empowering his/her abuse and rewarding ‘their’ sin with no consequence or discipline. If you don’t reward them with a consequence like divorce, you are encouraging them to believe that their abuse is morally justified. At least theopneusticism teaches us to be morally discerning and intimate with our God instead of being infantile in our minds or decisions. The grand strength of theopneusticism is the motivation in training your moral discernment, communing with God, and recognizing essential truths. Amen.
