Hi Eva,
Earlier I wrote to you saying, "Now then, I understand that you believe that the Bible is unreliable, (although you make use of misquoted passages from
it) and you feel it should not be used to guide one’s religious beliefs or lifestyle. We do not agree with each other on this issue. If the Bible is to be ignored, then Christianity is chopped off at the knees. The Bible is the blueprint for the faith, and without it the foundation is missing."
You responded, "My point exactly! 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!) 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."
Well, I believe the writings of the apostles DO reflect Christ and his fullness and you yourself have quoted the apostle John’s gospel to prove your own points. But you have made further comments against the writings of the apostles, especially Paul, saying,
"I am not negating the name and the power of Jesus. I'm just ‘confessing Christ’ on a grander scale than what the historical cult of fundamentalist Christianity based on Paul’s doctrines permits or understands.
the spirit of Christ in me will lead me into all truth, just so long as I don't start getting religiously addictive and begin fanatically embracing one
narrow viewpoint, as the Apostle Paul ultimately ended up doing.
Paul’s views began to rigidify into a specific set of doctrines that became more and more exclusive of others worshipping Christ in more open, not so rigidly-defined ways.
Throughout the dark ages and middle ages the church that formed out of Paul’s doctrines became one of the most murderously abusive, delusional, government-sanctioned religious cults of all time."
These are your views, and that’s fine, as long as you’re sharing "This is what works for me on my personal journey, take it or leave it," but much of what you stated in your three letters was written in a very preachy tone. (You may say the same about me!) And you stated and explained your doctrine in great detail as if it were fact. You also seem very unaware at just how offensive some of your statements are.
For example, if Paul’s teachings founded "the cult of fundamentalist Christianity" do you realize that you are saying that fundamental Christianity is a cult? And that Christians like myself who embrace the fundamentals of New Testament books are cultists? Do you see how personally offensive this is? Do you even care?
If Paul was as you describe "religiously addictive" for "fanatically embracing one narrow viewpoint," then you are stating, by extension, that Christians like myself are also religiously addictive and fanatical if we believe the same views as Paul. Don’t you see how personally offensive this is?
And if "the church that formed out of Paul’s doctrines became one of the most murderously abusive, delusional, government-sanctioned religious cults of all time" don’t you realize that you are laying the blame for the death of millions of people on New Testament writings that sincere, peaceful Christians use as guidelines to live honest, good lives by? Do you understand how offensive this is?
Eva, let me explain to you why your views not only offend me but scare me. I stated above, "If the Bible is to be ignored, then Christianity is chopped off at the knees. The Bible is the blueprint for the faith, and without it the foundation is missing." While I certainly do not see you as a cult leader, Berg had very similar views to yours regarding Paul. Berg of course used his Paul-bashing doctrines to control people’s lives and I don’t think you’re seeking to do that. But please read these quotes and see how Berg tried to bash Paul and remove his influence:
In "Grace vs Law" ML 635, Berg wrote the following:
(55) Most of our kids don't know the old Bible doctrines that well.(56) So they just take what I saw without question, they don't’ even know any Bible verses
to use against the Letters because they don't know the Bible that well. (57) But some of these people have had their doubts for a good many years.....Therefore
some of the things that I have said are going to raise questions in their minds and I'm sure the Devil is going to supply them with lots of Scriptures and say, "Well now, but, the Bible says so and so, and Paul said so and so and so on. (58) That’s why in my defense in ‘God’s Only Law if Love’ I stuck
strictly to the words of Christ in the Gospels and didn't get into the Epistles. There are quite a few things I don't agree with Paul on, and I think I have as much right to my opinion as he had to his.(69) This is exactly what’s kept the church in such a rut for so many years. They got to where they totally bound themselves entirely to the Bible with on extra-curricular revelations of any kind. (99) When these people start going back to these old legalistic Scriptures, even some of the legalism of Paul, then they are turning their backs on the freedom of grace and the liberty which the Lord has given us and the new wine and the new truth and new revelations which are for us today.
Eva, now do you understand why I am uncomfortable with you discarding Paul’s epistles? Again, I’m not saying you’re a cult leader, or even want to be, but once you gut the New Testament of the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, Jude & James, which Christians for 2,000 years have used as guidelines for Christian living, you are then free to make Christianity conform to whatever you want it to. You are welcome to state your views but I feel you have tried to invalidate
scriptures that I hold sacred, and have done so in an offensive way.