[QUOTE=Liberal]
I think that may be an hypostatization. The question might be better asked of individuals than of doctrine.
I agree with that, but people can hold different — even opposite — interpretations of, well, practically any assertion and all be valid. That said, I don’t think it is even a matter of validity, but of conscience. It is up to Christ Himself, after all, to determine the standard interpretation if any. We’ll find out whether our heartfelt faith met His standards when we meet Him face to face as it were. I am firmly of the opinion that each moral journey is a private and subjective one.
[/QUOTE]
Very interesting post.
I agree with some of this, although all of it is thought provoking. The issue I have, primarily, is the use of the word “valid.” I don’t believe you or me, or Polycarp. or even Diogenes can determine objectively what is valid.
If there is a God of the Judeo-Christian model, and if there is indeed to be some “day of judgment” (however that is manifested), than it is only then we will know if our own chosen journey was “valid.” I was reminded of the person who called Jesus “good”; and was immediately corrected as—in Christ’s words—only God was good.
If you are saying—and I think you are in some way (correct me if I’m wrong)----that anyone who is sincere (and tried to apply Christian principles etc) must be on a valid path, I would have to disagree. I hear many people say that your personal doctrines don’t matter—that any flavor of Christianity (and many people say any doctrine at all is valid) is valid because all roads lead to the same place.
To which I say, “no.” That doesn’t mean that I am in a position to judge you or your path. But I am reminded of some powerful texts where Jesus said that he would meet sincere, hard working people who ‘prophesied, expelled demons, did powerful works in his name etc’ and he would say ‘I never knew you. Get away from me you workers of lawlessness.’ He said ‘only those doing the will of my Father’ would see salvation. The bible is full of examples of people who were sincere and genuine but who were punished for what amounted to rebellion; they did their own thing in contradiction to what the “law” said.
It seems absolutely elementary to me that someone wanting to be a Christian must learn what Christ taught. (and that includes his appointed Church; the writings of the NT) It includes knowing the “letter of the law” and having a discerning, working understanding of what the bible says, and imprinting this on one’s heart, so that one lives the “spirit of the law.”
I find no case for [sincere] willful ignorance.
Many may say, however, "I am not ignorant. I have chosen to deviate from the bible in these specific ways because…“Biblical writers, editors and compilers were limited by their times and world views, even as we are, the Bible contains material wedded to those times and places…we also find in the Bible human emotion, testimony, opinion, cultural limitation and bias…” **I think it is a worthy discussion to have. **
Here too, I look to history and to the bible to see if God, Christ and the 40 bible writers had anything to say about “deviations” like these. Did God, Jesus, Paul et al face issues like these? Did they weigh in on the issue of “strict adherence”? How was the bible/law/written scrolls/parchments handled and viewed by both Jews and Christians alike? How did they view the written laws that governed their lives and worship? How did first century Christians behave? What about the centuries that followed?
I’m surely not the only one who thinks that way. By way of example, I’ve heard it said here that it wasn’t until the nineteenth century that strict adherence to the bible and it’s requirements came into vogue. (a laughable proposition, that any serious student of history or the bible would dismiss)
I find no credible historical or biblical basis for [sincere] willful rebellion or deviation.
Ironically, this is deja vu all over again. The religious establishment Jesus found was rife with religious leaders who were no longer following the [Mosaic] Law, or had added a series of man made addendums (Jesus called them “traditions”; sound familiar?) to the Law, or who were “gaming” the Law; paying lip service to it and making a show of it while not following it at all.
Look again at Matthew 15 and similar texts and tell me if it isn’t an accurate desription of Christianity today. It isn’t me who sees the hypocrisy of modern Christianity. Mosier has given a laundry list of social issues that modern Christianity is seemingly in total contradiction about. They are seemingly the way that Christ described them, “offspring of vipers.”
Amazingly to some perhaps, my personal sensibilities are similar to Polycarp or Siege or yours. But in my reading of the bible, I see account after account that shows that humility, and obedience are coupled with love in the Christian model.
Considering Christ’s life and teachings in it’s full and accurate context, it seems absolutely clear to me that my personal sensibilities must be subordinated to God’s.
My reading of the lives of the NT Christians, and the first century Christians—and even a good deal of the Church in the centuries that followed-----shows that a Christian:
-
Endeavors to read and understand Christianity in the way that Christ taught it, and through prayer apply that knowledge in one’s heart. There is no case for Google-Fu like knowledge.
-
Subordinates self will in favor of God’s will; that a Christian remains humble and obedient and accepts God on God’s terms. There is no case for well-intentioned Cafeteria Christianity, where one picks and chooses what they will follow.
