The apostle Paul, in his second pastoral epistle to Timothy, wrote: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth [2 Timothy 2:15]." At first blush, this latter seems an odd exhortation.
In the zeitgeist of American jurisprudence, we have the dictum that "United we stand; divided we fall." Alongside this, we have the words of Christ that, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand [Matthew 12:25c & d]." If unity is so good, and division so evil: why would one want to 'divide the word of truth'; much less actually do so? Should the "word of truth" then fall?
Obviously, if we believe Paul, this 'exhortation to divide' requires a more in- depth view than 'face value' allows. What should "the word of truth" be divided from? According to the 'Chicago Doctrine,' it can only be divided from the false perceptions of faulty men concerning it: for, according to those who sealed (and continue to so seal) their imprimatur to this incredible 'doctrine' of belief in the Doctrine, there is nary a word in the entire canon of scripture-- from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21-- which isn't absolutely, unequivocally, one- hundred- percent- unabashedly true. According to those who adhere to such pretensions of 'pseudo- Jewry [Acts 28:22]': taken as a whole, the Judaic scriptures are 'Absolute Truth,' altogether.
However, there are many lies in 'the word of God.' This, I suppose, makes yours truly a heretic of the highest order in the 'eyes' of those 'august, learned, inspired men of God' who say otherwise; whose mammon speaks for them, saying, "In God We Trust." Breath mints are they; and that of Jewry's charlatans: not men of God. If it were otherwise: they would read, study, and search the scriptures-- not the 'Cliff's Notes' of 'scholarship' about the scriptures-- in preparing [Luke 12:47] themselves for the ministry they feel 'called' to. "How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart... What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD [Jeremiah 23:26 & 28e & f]."
The dilemma which arises when men tell lies in the name of the LORD is, naturally: what is there to believe? Is all 'word of God' nought but chaff? Can scripture be received-- even in part-- as true? This, as I read Paul's exhortation to Timothy, is what is meant by "rightly dividing the word of truth." I believe there are truths in scripture. But these must be culled from the many lies; for of the latter there certainly are many.
And it's not only scripture which must be so winnowed. It's also the false teachings of men who know not the truth from lies which needs likewise a 'parting of ways' to achieve something resembling clarity on the Doctrine.
For instance: every denomination of professing Christianity I know of believes in, and positively affirms, the 'Doctrine of the Trinity.' This 'doctrine' holds that the Godhead is comprised-- in entirety-- of three distinct- though- unified personalities: the Father; the Son; and the Holy Ghost (a.k.a. the 'Holy Spirit of God'). As a generic apprehension of things essentially beyond the power of human reasoning to firmly 'grasp': this is, perhaps, acceptable as a 'rule of thumb.' There are some doctrinal difficulties with this, 'rule of thumb,' however.
For example, if the Holy Spirit of God is a member of the triune Godhead: are the "seven Spirits of God [Revelation 4:5c]" which John the Divine says burn as lamps before the throne of God entirely extemporaneous to the Godhead? Also: how-- if only three constitute the fullness of the Godhead-- does one make sense of the statement, by Paul, that "[we] are dead, and [our] life is hid with Christ in God [Colossians 3:3]," considering Christ and God are respective members of the same Godhead?
At any rate, such questions seem never to end. But where is the Rock a man may faithfully build his eternal home upon? I thank God for the Romans. Under the auspices of no other body of believers have I ever heard it said that a man could-- much less that he should-- like Christ, fulfill "the law and the prophets [Matthew 22:37 - 40]." Indeed-- in all other congregations I've 'rubbed elbows' with-- this is vehemently represented as a thing "only Jesus" could do. Why-- if these Protestants believe any part of the scriptures-- do they so stolidly protest against their own ability to 'love- God- and- neighbor?' Why attend church, if such is your piss- poor attitude towards love?
Again, John the Divine wrote: "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love [1 John 4:8]." This amounts to an unequivocal rejection of the 'profession' of those who say they 'love' one another, but conversely "only Jesus" could fulfill the law and the prophets. Love is not an exercise of the will, for God's children. Nor is it a choice to be made. Love is rather the cross on which we daily 'die to ourselves': not to 'game the system' and reach heaven; not because it's 'the right thing to do'; but rather because of our inexorable need to be ourselves. It is at once our integrity and also our undoing. There is no love where there is no sacrifice; but love's sacrifice is self- sacrifice: not 'scapegoat' sacrifice. Sacrificing another for one's own is self- preservation; not love.
Love is the family imprimatur of the sons of God: not an external institution or imposition. It's common sense that, without love: all other attributes of God are perverse. Justice without love- inspired forgiveness is desolation. Righteousness without love- inspired goodness is utter loneliness. A good man is necessarily evil in a wicked environment, because loving goodness necessitates hating wickedness. Mercy without love is oppression. Grace without love is endless scapegoating. Peace without love is Sodom. Vengeance without love is envy. Jealousy without love is a farce. The most comforting word I know of in all of scripture is this: "God is love [1 John 4:8b, et.al.]."
