Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas
Jeremy approaches Bible teaching with a passion for getting the basic doctrines explained so that the individual can understand them and then apply them to circumstances in their life. These basic and important lessons are nestled in a framework of history and progression of revelation from the Bible so the whole of Scripture can be applied to your physical and spiritual life.
Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas
NT Framework - Not Real Till Experienced?
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Some people hold to a view that things are not real until you have experienced them; if this is true does that mean I can not pay taxes because I have never seen the IRS? You see how this idea can get ridiculous quickly.
More information about Beyond the Walls, including additional resources can be found at www.beyondthewalls-ministry.com
This series included graphics to illustrate what is being taught, if you would like to watch the teachings you can do so on Rumble (https://rumble.com/user/SpokaneBibleChurch) or on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtV_KhFVZ_waBcnuywiRKIyEcDkiujRqP).
Jeremy Thomas is the pastor at Spokane Bible Church in Spokane, Washington and a professor at Chafer Theological Seminary. He has been teaching the Bible for over 20 years, always seeking to present its truths in a clear and understandable manner.
Welcome to Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas and our series on the New Testament framework. Today, a smaller, bite-sized piece from the larger lesson. We hope you enjoy it.
SPEAKER_01:Discussion about modern what we call Neo Orthodox theology and interpretations of the resurrection. These are Neo-Orthodoxy is probably the most prevailing form of Christianity even to our own day now. It really began strongly, I would say, like in the 1940s, so kind of post-World War II there era. And uh Neo-Orthodoxy, it sounds like orthodoxy, right? We know what orthodoxy means. Orthodoxy means, hey, this is sound doctrine. Neo-orthodoxy is the new orthodoxy, right? And it kind of started in the 1940s. Now what it basically has two elements. One element is rationalism, the idea that reason is a perfect purveyor of truth. It can give us all the answers we need. Reason. Or we might even say unaided human reason. Just your human reason, unaided by something like five person. But it also has a mystical component to it. So these are really the two rationalism and mysticism are kind of the two key elements that are behind neo-orthodoxy. And it's really derived from a guy in the 1830s named uh Soren Kierkegaard, who developed existentialist philosophy. He was actually a Christian, but uh he develops existential philosophy. And in the 1920s, this gets married, in the 1920s and 30s gets married to rationalism. In one particular theologian who was very influential in the 20th century, his name is Carl Bart. And Bart was the guy who was basically training all the people who were teaching in the seminaries. He was basically the go-to mind, you know, of the 40s and 50s, and therefore responsible for the spread of Neo-Orthodox theology through the seminaries across our country and the world. So now these guys don't believe in the resurrection, but they talk about the resurrection. What I mean is if you asked them, do you believe in the resurrection? they would say, Well, yes. But they don't mean by the resurrection the same thing that you and I mean. They don't mean the literal bodily physical resurrection of Jesus out of the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Now, probably 99 out of a hundred pastors, even today, if you go there on Easter Sunday and you listen to their resurrection sermon, they'll talk about the resurrection and Jesus rising from the dead and all that, and they don't even mean for one second what we believe. Not even for one second. Now, if you ask them straightforward, do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus? They will tell you 100% of the time, yes. But the reason they can say that is because they mean something different. You didn't ask them a question that's precisely worded enough to nail down what they really believe. So, what I'm gonna do here is give you a recounting of a story that involved Karl Barth, okay? Now, um Neo-Orthodoxy will basically say that something in the Bible becomes true to you when you have an experience with it. In other words, the Bible is not true until you experience it to be true for you. So the Bible contains truth, but it's not truth. It contains truth, and when you experience it, it then becomes true for who? For you. Not for me.
unknown:Okay?
SPEAKER_01:I have to have my own personal experience with it for it to be true for me on that point. So they would say their doctrine of inspiration is that they would say the Bible contains the word of God. And most of us would say, oh, yeah, yeah, the Bible contains the word of God. No, they don't, no, no, no, no, no. You don't want to agree with that statement. They're saying just what I just said, okay, pieces and parts of the Bible are true when they become true for you. Therefore, it contains the word of God. Not that it is the word. They don't believe that for a second. So things that, because they're rationalists, they don't really believe in the resurrection, okay, but they do believe that the apostles had experiences. And somehow they imagined that the resurrection was true. And that's what people like Bart are talking about. So you can't ask them, do you believe in the resurrection? That will you'll never get the answer you're looking for. So Carl F. H. Henry, years and decades and decades ago, was the uh editor for Christianity Today, which has basically gone defunct today. I mean, if you want to read that, you can just find all the heresy you want. It's unbelievable. So he he actually wasn't a theologian, he was a reporter, a journalist. And he had the opportunity to go and listen to Carl Barth speak. And afterwards, uh the AP press is there, you know, all these various press uh groups are there, reporters, to, you know, uh have, you know, uh, you know, get to ask Bart some questions. So Carl F. H. Henry was on to what Carl Bart was doing as a neo-Orthodox guy. And so I'm gonna read this little exchange that he wrote about. When the question period began, I asked about the factualness, the historicity of the resurrection. Now, over at the table are newspaper reporters. I noted the religion editor of the United Press International, the religious news service correspondent, and the religion editors of the Washington Papers. Here's this question. If they had these present repertorial responsibilities in the first century, in other words, if we took these reporters sitting over here at the desk and put them back in the first century and stuck them in Jerusalem in 33 AD, right, was the event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ of such a nature that covering it would have fallen into the area of the repertorial responsibility? Now, do you see what Carl F. Henry is doing here? He's not saying, Hey, do you, hey Bart, do you believe in the resurrection? Because if he asked him, they said, he would have never got to the truth. Instead, what he said was, hey, if you put these reporters back in the first century and the events of the death and resurrection occurred, would they have responsibility to cover that event as a newsworthy item? Because at this time, at least, in the media, you're supposed to do what? Report what actually happened. History. This actually happened. So he's really smart, right? He is he is he is nailing Bart down. Okay. He says, um, that is, was it news and history in the sense in which the man in the street understands news and history? That's what we're I want to understand from you, Carl. Bart became angry. Yeah, you bet he did. Uh because he realizes he's put been put in a corner. And he's now gonna have to answer in front of the press what he really believes. He says, Since I had identified myself as editor of Christianity today, he reported leverly, I might add. Did you say Christianity today or Christianity yesterday? Rather taken aback, I replied only by quoting the scripture text yesterday, today, and forever. Certainly a hurried misappropriation. Barth then responded to the question obliquely by saying this the resurrection had significance for the disciples of Jesus Christ. It was to the disciples that he appeared. But that wasn't in the question at all. On the way out, the United Press correspondent remarked to me, we got his answer. His answer was they had an experience with the resurrected Christ. As someone might have an experience taking hallucinogen, but it was nothing good. And that is what is pawned off in most churches today, the same thing that Carl Barth trained all these people in the seminaries like Bultmann Nieber, and all the rest of them, okay, who trained the pastors that are across this country and across the world. That the Bible is not the Word of God, that it contains the Word of God.
SPEAKER_00:Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas. If you would like to see the visuals that went along with today's sermon, you can find those on Rumble and on YouTube under Spokane Bible Church. That is where Jeremy is the pastor and teacher. We hope you found today's lesson productive and useful in growing closer to God and walking more obediently with Him. If you found this podcast to be useful and helpful, then please consider rating us in your favorite podcast app. And until next time, we hope you have a blessed and wonderful day.