Help wanted: teachers in heaven
In the comments of a post on another blog a person has stated that he has two things on his to-do list when he enters the pearly gates. Both of these items involve teaching theology in heaven based on his earthly knowledge. Excuse me!!!! This statement begs a few questions:1. Who is going to be in charge in heaven if humans are making plans to teach theology?
2. Will God need help from human teachers with human wisdom in heaven?
3. Will glorified saints be required to attend for this person to further the process of glorification that God begun?
4. Will his teaching be the main focus rather than worshipping and glorifying God?
I think this statement is an example of how a theology based on a faulty foundation can lead to this kind of thinking. When the foundation is shaky the building will be also. However, a theology based on the majesty, sovereignty, power, holiness, and glory of God would never lead someone to thinking he was going to be a teacher in heaven. The basic theme I get from Scripture is that Christ is the Sheppard and we are the sheep. He leads, we follow.
Any thoughts?
Susan has an excellent post and discussion going just below this post. I hated to post this so close behind her, but I think the light needs to shine on this unbelievable comment while it is still current.
posted by jazzycat at 11:18 AM
35 Comments:
My understanding was that we will fill "know fully" in heaven. Why would there even be a need for teaching theology?
Or am I just butchering the context of that verse?
July 24, 2007 11:34 AM
I read that comment on that blog as well, Wayne. I thought perhaps the writer was being facetious.
Nonetheless, I thought it demonstrated some of that "man upstairs" attitude (somewhat cavalier attitude toward God) - a lessening of the sovereignty of God.
Oh that we all would decrease!
July 24, 2007 11:35 AM
In an internal spat between contributors to the Unashamed of Grace blog, Antonio made this comment. I tried to read it carefully to see if it was made tongue in cheek, however, I see no indication of that being the case.
Hopefully, it was said in the heat of debating and he really didn't mean it. No one other than "Good night safe at home" seems to have noticed.
July 24, 2007 11:36 AM
Btw, thanks for the note about the discussion on the post below this one. Much appreciated.
One more thought:
A few years ago, a pastor in his sermon noted how he hears people say "When I get to heaven, I'm going to tell God x, y, z..."
The pastor just shook his head and said, "Folks, when you get there, you're not gonna be tellin' God anything; He's not 'the man upstairs.' He is God. We're going to be singing and praising and enjoying Him."
Something to that effect.
But still, it's a reflection of that cavalier thinking with respect to the Creator of the universe and us all.
July 24, 2007 11:39 AM
Gayla,
I almost used a photo to illustrate that very verse for this post. I think your view is correct.
If he was being facetious he sure didn't make obvious.
wayne
July 24, 2007 11:41 AM
Susan,
You are right. I think we so-called lordshippers would have stumbled all over the red flags our conscience would have thrown out over such a comment.
BTW. Excellent post and comments in post right below this one.
July 24, 2007 11:43 AM
I think we so-called lordshippers would have stumbled all over the red flags our conscience would have thrown out over such a comment.
Yes. Exactly right. I believe you are correct here.
I think what grabbed me about his comment was teaching to amillers. So far, what I know about amillenialism I have little disagreement with. BUT, I have a father who is dispensationalist. I believe he is saved - not because I want him to be, but because I know he loves and serves Jesus as his Lord. Daily he rises to read Scripture. Daily he searches them - and has for as long as I can remember. He's a praying father and a wise man for it.
We differ in our theological views. Quite widely in fact. But never would I presume to preach to him - on earth and especially not in heaven.
As Gayla noted, there will be no need. For now we know only in part, but there? Oh, what a day that will be!
July 24, 2007 11:51 AM
The seemingly anthropocentric nature of the comment disturbs me the most.
July 24, 2007 1:30 PM
Besides, the saints in heaven know more about God and "theology" than the best theologian alive.
July 24, 2007 1:31 PM
I thought you were joking!
Theology? In heaven? He means the study of God? Just a sec...let me get this straight...we're in the New Heavens and the New Earth in the presence of Christ, the Lamb, and we're going to go listen to this guy teach us about God?
Here's how you teach theology in glory...(tongue firmly planted in cheek, just so you know)...you stand at the pearly gates and as humbly as possible repeat over and over again to everyone who comes in, "Yes, ma'am, just follow the golden brick road and you will arrive at the feast where the Lamb will reveal all."
July 24, 2007 3:42 PM
"I have two things on my to-do list when I finally enter the pearly gates:
1) Co-teach a remedial prophecy course to Amils with John Walvoord.
2) Co-teach an intermediate soteriology course to soft free-gracers with Zane Hodges."
Alrighty then! Perhaps he will do this while we spend our time in Protestant purgatory! ;~)
I don't think it really matters if he was joking or not. The statement is extremely arrogent either way one looks at it.
July 24, 2007 4:56 PM
Scribe, Dave, and Doug:
Excellent points all..... As a matter of fact all the points made in these comments really amplify the absurdity of such a statement!
July 24, 2007 9:58 PM
"Any thoughts?"
Um, none that don't involve the word "quack".
July 25, 2007 5:40 PM
Daniel,
If it walks like a duck….. I have tried to read the comment like it was tongue in cheek, but the reference to off-subject amill eschatology makes me think it was a serious comment. I would have certainly made it unmistakable that I wasn’t serious if I had written such a thing.
July 25, 2007 5:56 PM
Thanks, Daniel!
:-D
That was really good!
July 25, 2007 6:22 PM
You all really enjoy making others the butt of your jokes over here, don't you? Are you persevering in love?
July 25, 2007 8:11 PM
"You all really enjoy making others the butt of your jokes over here, don't you? Are you persevering in love?"
Anon, did you read what the man wrote, if I may ask? What he wrote, whether jokingly or not, is nothing but pure arrogence.
July 25, 2007 8:21 PM
It seems obvious it was a joke.
July 25, 2007 8:21 PM
Anon,
You all really enjoy making others the butt of your jokes over here, don't you? Are you persevering in love?
Arbitrary assessment on your end. At least be culpable to your answer by divulging your identity.
July 25, 2007 8:22 PM
There is enough arrogance to go around all of these blogs.
July 25, 2007 8:22 PM
"It seems obvious it was a joke."
As I said, whether a joke or not, it was arrogent. Why would anyone need to even joke about such a thing when scriptures teach that we shall all be taught by God? And yet here is this man joking about being a teacher in heaven.
July 25, 2007 8:25 PM
There is enough arrogance to go around all of these blogs.
Perhaps...but my comment still stands.
July 25, 2007 8:25 PM
"There is enough arrogance to go around all of these blogs."
Perhaps, but to be so arrogent as to teach in heaven in the place of almighty God reaches a low that only those of the wicked one could appreciate.
July 25, 2007 8:27 PM
"Perhaps...but my comment still stands."
You know who it is, Scribe.
July 25, 2007 8:28 PM
Given the arragont nature of your own presuppositions, I can see why you would want to maintain your anonymity...
July 25, 2007 8:29 PM
"Given the arragont nature of your own presuppositions, I can see why you would want to maintain your anonymity..."
I am pretty sure it isn't Antonio playing the part of anon.
July 25, 2007 8:31 PM
You know who it is, Scribe.
(queues in Jeopardy theme)
Can I buy a vowel?
[[sweats under the pressure]]
July 25, 2007 8:32 PM
"(queues in Jeopardy theme)
Can I buy a vowel?
[[sweats under the pressure]]"
It'll cost ya! :-)
Check you email in a minute.
July 25, 2007 8:35 PM
Just sent it over, Scribe.
July 25, 2007 8:51 PM
No way!!!
July 25, 2007 8:59 PM
If this is who I think it is, THAT person may want to rescind their statement as they themselves hold not to the very thing they accuse others of(and I have proof)
July 25, 2007 9:00 PM
Hey Scribe,
Check the next email I sent.
July 25, 2007 9:18 PM
Anon....
Since I wrote this article, let me assure you that love is indeed most important as Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 13. However, the Bible also exhorts us to refute and oppose unsound doctrine, false teaching, etc. If you will do a word search you may be surprised at how often this is mentioned in Scripture.
I often seek counsel as to whether I have gone too far in refuting and rebuking others and their views. However, my goal when I err is to go too far rather than not far enough. Unsound teachings and thinking are pervasive today and I can assure you that at Jazzycat and as long as Mark lets me write here, I will not only affirm sound teaching, but I will deny and refute unsound and especially blasphemous content. New seekers should be aware that every spirit should be tested.
If Antonio states that he was not serious, then I will accept that. So far he has not bothered to comment. Since your rebuke here is anonymous, it is not accepted at all. It is worthless.
July 25, 2007 10:43 PM
It seems obvious it was a joke.
By the way, anon, if you think so, then you should recognize that much of what was said here was "obvious" to be a "joke" as well.
July 26, 2007 6:34 PM
Frankly, truthfully, that's how I took Daniel's initial comment - in jest.
I needed a good laugh at that time, and he provided it.
July 26, 2007 6:36 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home