In Reply to: My 2nd response to Alan posted by Eva (reposted) on January 04, 2004 at 11:34:16:
Okay ladies and gentlemen, strap on your critical thinking caps and prepare to wade into the debate!
Alan
Hello Eva,
Thanks for the second reply. I can appreciate how the daily demands of job and family can make it difficult to spend time debating on a chat board.
Perhaps the limitations of this medium has skewed what you really meant by the term fundamentalist. My overall impression of how you used it in your previous reply led me to believe you intended the most negative definition.
I'd like to believe you don't have the more negative stereotype in mind when you use this term, but you make it difficult to think otherwise when you write the following:
"...with the same kind of spiritual bias which, in general, your camp manifests towards non-Christians and non-fundamentalists (i.e.: 'the spiritually damned' in your eyes)."
That's a very unfair characterization, Eva. I certainly don't consider non-fundamentalist Christians to be "spiritually damned." Are you being sarcastic, or is this what you really think?
As the official ringleader of the fundamentalist cabal (my attempt at sarcasm) I deny any such attitude toward Christians who are not fundamentalists. If *anybody* has accepted Jesus Christ as his lord and saviour, then their names are written in the Lamb's book of life. It doesn't matter what denomination they belong to,Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, or even if they don't belong to a church at all. Does that shock you? I bet it does. Please set aside your misconceptions about what you call fundamentalist Christians.
Non-Christians, on the other hand, are a different matter. The words of Christ make it quite clear:(John 3:16 KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Therefore, if someone refuses to believe in Christ, and remains a non-Christian, and dies without having accepted him, He will perish and will not have everlasting life.
This is very basic Christian doctrine, and all but the most theologically liberal believe it. Based upon what you have written, I suspect you reject this as a rigid and dogmatic doctrine, am I correct? Do you or do you not believe that Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation? Would a Moslem, for example, enter heaven when he dies, even though he has steadfastly rejected Christ as anything more than a prophet? (keep in mind that Islam rejects the Christian doctrine that Christ is the son of God. One of their prayer mantras inscribed on the floor of the Dome of the Rock Mosque reads, "God has no son.")
In another part, you write:
"Again you are putting words in my mouth when you make the assumption “you feel (the Bible) should not be used to guide one's religious beliefs or lifestyle”
and “is to be ignored”. How on earth could you get that impression when I stated that I've been an avid Bible studier and have been quoting the Bible to you? I'm saying exactly that – that it can be used as a guide, - but NOT as the ‘undisputed word of God’."
Well, when you vilify Apostle Paul, and refer to him as some sort of fundamentalist cult leader, and try to blame him for what the Catholic church did during the dark ages, (long after Paul had been martyred) and when you reject all the epistles he authored,(that's most of the New Testament) what else can I conclude? When you say that the Bible was put together by "corrupt church politicians (who were most probably ‘unsaved’ and ‘un-spirit-filled’) were the ones that decided which books should go into
the Bible and how each passage should be ‘translated’..." it sure sounds like you reject it. By the way: How do you know the members of the councils were "unsaved" or "un-spirit-filled" anyhow? That's an unfounded assumption on your part, isn't it? In fact, you have just repeated your belief that it is not the word of God.
In your prior response, you asked:
"Where did Paul say that every word he wrote was the undisputed word of God and could
never be challenged?"
I'm glad you asked. Here's your answer:
(2 Tim 3:16 KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
The above verses make it very clear that the scriptures contained in the Bible (contrary to your assertion) can indeed be relied upon as the word of God.
It's pretty clear from the above quotes and from your other statements regarding the supposed unreliability of the Bible, that you give it about as much credence as a supermarket tabloid. Your vilification of Paul, who was instrumental in reaching the Gentile world with the Gospel, and who was imprisoned and eventually martyred for his faith is terribly misguided, and your rejection of his epistles, which account for the majority of the New Testament is a huge mistake.
You write:
"The Bible has many divinely-inspired passages that have helped me repeatedly, and it contains much good material for spiritual contemplation."
That sounds good, but it contradicts what you wrote elsewhere. It appears to me that you treat the Bible like a spiritual cafeteria, embracing some passages as divinely inspired, while others (such as Paul's epistles) you reject.
Eva, upon what basis do you accept and reject Bible scripture? You have described yourself as an "avid Bible scholar." What are your qualifications for determining what Bible passages are to be canon? What advanced degrees do you have that are necessary for the canonical process? Are you fluent in ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? I suspect you have no qualifications to serve on a canonical board. I'm sure you have quite a bit of theological knowledge, but you are mostly self-taught. I'm sorry, but that doesn't qualify you to make decisions about what sections of the Bible should or should not be canon.
The men you have labeled "corrupt church politicians" had all the advanced degrees and many years of experience required to serve on the numerous church councils. This was not a one-time event. Scripture was being canonized over a period spanning hundreds of years. The canonical process followed strict guidelines to validate the source of all scripture included in the Bible. I suggest you do some homework on what this process involved. Your characterizations don't jibe with the historical facts.
Now we get to the crux of the matter. You write:
"You perceive the foundation of your Christian faith to be the Bible, not Christ! Without the Bible you would have no ‘Christian faith’.
You would only have the living Christ in your heart and nothing else. (You wouldn't believe how liberating and powerful that can be!)"
How long were you in the Children of God/The Family cult? Didn't you learn anything from that experience which would tell you how dangerous this is? David Berg and Karen Zerbe gradually went off the deep end, and they deceived all of us into all manner of evil and perversion. How did they deceive us? By replacing the Bible with their own version of scriptures...known as Mo letters!
If you think you can just rely on what you believe to be the spirit of Christ talking to you, and that you don't need the guidance of what Christ and his disciples taught about so many things, you are walking on thin ice. The Bible warns us of false prophets and lying spirits, and how we must test them:
(1 John 4:1 KJV) Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
This is how false prophets manage to deceive so many people. Keep them ignorant of God's word. Tell them not to think for themselves, because their mind is the devil's playground, Don't think critically, because that's only doubting God's prophet. Tell them they don't need the Bible...it's old wine. All you need is the new wine, and it comes from your prophet. You don't need the written word to guide you...just listen to the voices in your head. You don't need to test the spirits to see if they are of God, just relax, trust, and do whatever they tell you!
Martin Luther (another great man of God whom you falsely vilify) spoke out against this same "you don't need the Bible" heresy when the all powerful Roman Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The Catholic leadership didn't want the people to have access to Bibles in their own language. After all, if the people could read the Bible for themselves, they would quickly discover that they were being mislead and lied to by the priests. With an accessible Bible, the people would learn that you couldn't buy forgiveness for sins by purchasing "indulgences" from the priests. No wonder the Catholic leadership persecuted Luther for translating the Bible to a language the common people could read!
Martin Luther was not "rabidly anti-Semitic" which you claim, and your reference to Berg repeating this myth in an ML as proof would be funny if the accusation weren't so serious. The supposed anti-Semitic writings of Luther dealt with his disgust over the religious hypocrisy he witnessed in Judaism. If taken out of context (as Hitler did) Luther's comments would indeed appear to be anti-Semitic. His anger was not leveled at the Jewish race, it was leveled at their religion. Jesus Christ made some very negative statements about hypocritical scribes and Pharisees in Matthew chapter 23. Would you label him "rabidly anti-Semitic" as well?
Here's another even weirder accusation you made against Luther:
"He condoned the slaughter of peasants who’d risen up against the Catholic church as a response to his own teachings!"
When you consider how much Luther came to despise and denounce the Catholic church hierarchy because of their many heresies, this accusation makes no sense at all. Where is your proof of this event? You are long on accusations, but short on evidence to back up anything you have claimed.
In the following excerpt, your misconceptions about fundamentalists, and your condescending attitude about the authors of the Bible is quite obvious:
"You're confirming to me that fundamentalist Christianity is NOT founded on Christ in all his fullness, it is founded on the epistles of a few apostles - a small selection
of historical texts containing the limited understanding of men who knew maybe a hundredth of what we know about life and reality in this present day."
Eva, you are not just condescending, you are flat out wrong. Fundamentalist Christians do not limit their reading material to the Bible alone. Have you ever visited a Bible college operated by what you would consider to be a fundamentalist Christian organization? Probably not, or you wouldn't make such a ludicrous assertion. I've visited the libraries of Liberty Baptist College, (does Jerry Fallwell ring a bell?) Bob Jones University, (remember him?) and Regents University (Pat Robertson). I assure you that their large libraries are not limited to Bibles! Go visit a Christian bookstore, and you'll find hundreds of books by Christian authors, many of them whom you would label fundamentalists.
It's a wee bit hypocritical to complain about the "small selection
of historical texts" in the Bible. If you had your way, the number of epistles would be even smaller, since you would throw out everything written by Apostle Paul.
Here's another example of your failure to see the important role the Bible plays in keeping the Christian church on a solid doctrinal foundation:
"Where would your faith be without your Bible? What would your faith look like without your Bible? Is it a living faith, or is it co-dependent on ‘Bible
doctrine’. Can it stand alone, free of all dogmas? Or does it need the crutch of (the fundamentalist interpretation of) the Bible for constant reinforcement?"
You just don't get the importance of having the written teachings of Christ and his chosen disciples. Without the doctrinal guidance of the scriptures, people would have no standard against which to judge new teachings. If you think there are lots of dangerous cults today, just imagine how many more would flourish if there were no Biblical standard.
In my previous message, I challenged you to provide proof of your accusations. You still haven't done so, and in the following example, you simply say I'm wrong and leave it at that:
"You wrote that my account of Paul going to the Gentiles was “a very clever modification of what really happened.” No, I don't believe it is. I believe your
historical fundamentalist understanding of the story is the ‘clever modification’."
Your response isn't proving your claim, Eva. All you did is offer a denial. You have made unsubstantiated assertions regarding Paul, Luther, and the validity of the Bible, and your assertion that Christians don't need a Bible to avoid doctrinal heresy is music to the ears of all the David Bergs, Karen Zerbes, and Jim Jones of the world.