It’s a Metaphysics Issue, not a Gospel One

 

Saw an article, explaining how the passage about head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, is about a gospel issue.

This of course, is nonsense. Paul says it is a metaphysics issue. It is about creation and God’s right to define His own creation.  I would recommend my outline for systematic theology so that one [1]understands their biblical category’s rightly.  Now Soteriology in essence is a subsidiary category of ontology. Because it is a subsidiary category it does not make rational sense until the bigger issues of metaphysics and ontology are answered: i.e. such as creation and God’s absolute and direct control over it. That is, without a world, or without a definition of existence then salvation is meaningless, and unintelligent.

This is a similar problem with ethics. If ethics is concluded off ontology, without divine command, then the inference is invalid, and a category error is made. There is another problem. Ethics without metaphysics, cannot exist. Ethics without man, is not applicable to me. Ethics without epistemology is nothing to talk about.

“Gospel Centered,” is such a hot topic in the Christian sub-culture that any passage of Scripture is forced through it, even if they do not properly belong. Christians put up with this wickedness. It does not matter how awful the inference is. It does not matter how twisted the scripture becomes, as long as someone inscribes “gospel centered,” “gospel issue,” or ‘for God’s glory,” to this dunghill, then it will be received as truth.

Also, in the first Apostolic sermon, Peter says that forgiveness of our sins (Gospel Centered) was a steppingstone or doorway, to move on, and then receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38, “Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” NLT. Well, that doesn’t sound very gospel centered, now does it? But I digress.

 

Below is Vincent Cheung mocking this as it ought to be.

 

The Water-Walking Controversy

Peter: Lord, if it is really you, tell me to walk to you on the water.

Jesus: Come!

Thus Jesus gave his word, his promise that Peter could exercise this power and experience this miracle. Peter started walking toward Jesus. He was walking on the water as if it was solid ground. It was happening. It was indeed the word of God. It was indeed the will of God. Otherwise, he could not have taken even the first step. But as Peter saw the wind and the waves, he became fearful, and started to sink. As always, the false teachers were watching, and scheming.

Peter: Lord, save me!

Theologian #1: It must be the will of God for you to suffer!

Theologian #2: This is a gift from God! Embrace it! Learn from it!

Theologian #3: The mystery of suffering. Oh, the theology of the cross!

Theologian #4: Don’t waste your drowning!

Theologian #5: People are watching. Quick! Strike a pose as you sink. Try to look like a suffering saint. You can get a book deal out of this! “Where is God When I Sink?” “The Water-Walking Heresy.” “Christ-Centered Drowning.” “Sinking and the Sovereignty of God.” “Drowning for the Glory of God.” “The Redemptive-Historical Excuse for Sinking in Life.” There is a large market of idiots with itching ears for this kind of stuff.

Jesus: Peter, I gave you my word, but it takes faith to experience what I said. Why do you have so little faith? Why did you doubt? What did the wind and the waves have to do with it? Do you think it is easier to walk on calm water? What have I been teaching you about miracles? Walk by faith, not by sight! If you have faith, THEN you will see the glory of God. If you failed to experience a miracle, it is not because I did not give you my promise, but because you did not have faith.[2]

 

——–Endnotes——–

[1] Oshea Davis. The Bible is Philosophy.

[2] Vincent Cheung. “Water Walking Controversy.”  Backstage. 2016. Chapter 42. Page 75.