Did You Mean That Literally?

Did You Mean That Literally?

This article makes the point that nobody in the Protestant wing of the Church today bothers to refer to any source earlier than the Protestant Reformers. Those who do normally stop at Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225–1274). The Reformers themselves did not appeal to any source earlier than Augustine (A.D. 354–430). Should anyone take the time to read earlier sources with an open mind, they would find that the literal theory of interpretation—as it is held today—was totally unknown to the Early Church Fathers. The Fathers prior to Origen (ca. A.D. 200) understood their mission was to hand down The Apostolic Teaching just as Jesus Christ delivered it to the Apostles. Those after Origen were busily engaged in “doing theology.”

The Origen of Folly

During the second half of the second century, the leaders of the Early Church gradually abandoned the parabolic understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures that had been handed down to them by the Apostles. Under the influence of “Christian philosophers” like Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, they were seduced into adopting Origen’s (ca. A.D. 185–254) allegorical method of interpretation. That seminal event opened the floodgates of speculation into the meaning and significance of the Hebrew Scriptures. Systematic theology is the “hounds” that Origen unleashed on the Church.

Temple and Antichrist

Satan was able to destroy the unity of the Church nearly 1800 years ago by convincing fools they could interpret the Scriptures for themselves. Rather than continuing to hand down The Apostolic Teaching as Jesus commanded, everybody headed off in whatever direction they deemed best. This article explains how the seeds of deception sown long ago will yield a bountiful harvest when Satan appears as the Antichrist.

They’ve Put God in a Box! (or So They Think)

The proponents of the literal theory of biblical interpretation insist the Scriptures can only be understood literally. The Truth is, that position is not only completely untenable, it makes absolutely no sense to anyone with an open mind. If men can create allegorical literature with hidden meaning—like John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress—who would be foolish enough to assert the Prophets of God could not and did not do the same thing?

Questions & Answers

This set of “Questions & Answers” always comes back to issues that somehow relate to the folly of believing the literal theory of interpretation. One of the answers provides a brief explanation of the role the Stoic philosophers played in the loss of The Apostolic Teaching. Another includes an easily understood but facetious tale written using an overabundance of idioms and colloquial expressions to make the point that only a fool would contend God could only speak literally through the Prophets when we communicate clearly by speaking in idioms all the time.

 

 

---