Blasphemy or Blessing?

I have often heard people talk about how you can take the writings or teachings of some Theologian and stretch them out to what they think is a logical end; they become heresy. For example, if you take the ministry of Billy Graham and say that all he is trying to do is get people to pray a prayer. Now, as Christians we know that just words coming over your lips will not save anyone. But Graham preached repentance and turning from sin, not just a sinner's prayer. Now did he use the common sinner's prayer to a great extent? Yes indeed. But that was not the cornerstone of his faith, nor was that the only goal of his ministry. He preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This is a very Biblical message.     Matthew 3:2 Matthew 4:17

Other authors have also been accused of misleading people if you take their sermons or writings a step further. People like John MacArthur, T.D. Jakes, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and many, many modern authors have been accused of starting a thought process that leads to heresy or blasphemy if you follow it to what they would claim is its logical end. What are we as Christians to do about this? How do we know if these things are good or bad, blasphemy or blessing?

So what kind of extrapolation is correct or incorrect? Well lets take a look at a parable we are familiar with: The Prodigal Son of Luke 15:11-32.

In this story we have the Father, who represents God. We have the son who represents fallen mankind. We have the other brother who represents an unforgiving spirit. Jesus parable here is designed to show the forgiveness of God, and it does so quite well.

But what does it mean that the Father is intending to give an inheritance? Does this mean Jesus is implying God will die? And what of the friends in this story, are they the angels? What about the other son; for if the prodigal represents mankind, does that mean that the other brother is an example of another group of beings? And who are the farmer who employed him, or the false friends who forsook him? Does the famine mean something?

All these questions can be overwhelming. Some of them have answers, while others are nonsense. But which is which? How can we as discerning Christians know?

There are a couple of ways that we can learn to understand these parables and other teachings. The first thing we should do before we do any of this is pray. Ask God to lead you, His Spirit will reveal things we cannot understand.

God does require us to put in effort as well, however. We cannot pray and stop trying. We must persist. Therefore, we need to ask important questions about any teacher's teaching. Here are some of them.

1. Are the questions you are asking important to the main point?
Many interesting questions we may ask have nothing to do with the point the author was trying to make. The parable of the prodigal son has nothing to do with angels, therefore Jesus did not include them. This does not mean they have no part to play in our lives, it is just not the main point He was trying to make.

2. Does the author intend for you to draw this conclusion?
In the question, 'What about the inheritance, does this mean Jesus is implying God will die? ' We need to ask ourselves, What else does Jesus teach about the Father? Is there any teaching anywhere that we can use to assume that this is what Jesus meant? If not, we should not think that Jesus meant that here. He used a story to convey an idea about forgiveness, He was not trying to hide something dark or revolutionary in the story. Nothing that Jesus says here or anywhere else ever suggests that the Father will die, therefore, we cannot assume that is what He meant here either.

3. Is this direct Theology, or is it an example?
Direct Theology is based in absolute statements. These are things like: God is eternal, God created the heavens and the Earth, Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is God.
These direct theological statements are not up for discussion and have a direct, absolute meaning.
Examples (types, parables, similes, metaphors, or any other literary device) are used to make a point. They are not meant to fit in absolutely all ways of interpreting them, only in the way they are first used. For example, Jesus is the door to God. That means He is the only way in. It does not mean that Jesus has hinges that can be turned or a lock that can be picked. When He says that He is the bread of life, that does not mean He gets moldy if you leave Him alone too long. Examples are only useful for explaining one meaning, not several, and will fall apart if you try to make them mean something they don't mean.

This is the most misused form of Theology in writing, to assume that an example can mean multiple things. Although some stretching may work with examples, (one could say the other brother in the Prodigal Son might be the self-righteous person) it does not work universally. For that reason, if a person is using examples, take the example to only mean what the author or speaker intends it to mean. Even Jesus parables can be twisted to mean things they don't.

If the issue you are discussing does indeed involve direct Theology, then it is important to understand the first two point here, namely, is that the point the author was making? If not, is it a sub-point the author did intend for you to draw? Sometimes these sub-points are intentional, but often times they are not. Sir Thomas Moore and Martin Luther were both men of God who lived in the same time, yet both understood the Church differently. They both followed the conviction that they felt was of God. Moore was killed for his, Luther lived a full life. Moore stayed in the Catholic Church, Luther left. Moore believed in the Sacraments, Luther did not. What were the implications of their beliefs? Do we agree with them? Were these the things Luther and Moore wanted us to take from their lives?

In the end, the point both Luther and Moore were making was this: We must follow the guidance of God in our lives even if that costs us church positions (Luther) or our very lives (Moore). Even if some of the beliefs these men had are things I would disagree with now, their lives were an example to be followed. They both lived in obedience to God to the best they could. Neither one was perfect, but nor were they expected to be. It is the heart, the motive if you will, that God looks to; and we are to try to understand that motive, not just the statement or action.