Actually, it could be. It isn’t a compelling argument for saying either are wrong, certainly. But in practical terms it is. If there is something about people or about Christianity itself that means it is wont to be misunderstood, this again says nothing about the truthfulness of either interpretation, but is does suggest that perhaps Christianity may be easily twisted.
Imagine I give a load of money to some of my friends. One of them gives most to charity and banks what’s left. But the others spend it on drugs. Now, this says nothing about the morality of money itself; in this case, it’s neutral. But if the results of money existing mean that in general it wasn’t going to help people, it would provide zero argument for the rightness of money, but a good argument against money in practical terms. Now switch a philosophy in there. The interpretation of a philosophy says nothing about the objective worth or truth of it. But it does say something about the practical benefits and problems of that philosophy.
I think most Christians would agree with this statement, but then would go on to disagree about what the Bible/Christ taught. Christianity has a long history of arguing over meaning. I expect all denominations believe they are correctly interpreting the Bible/Christ.
So you don’t think that there are any whose official literature includes the line, “It is the official position of this denomination that our interpretation of the Bible is incorrect”?
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.
There’s a large un-excluded middle between “the Bible is a fabricated tissue of lies” and “the Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God.” It’s my understanding that the Catholics, many of the Lutherans, the Anglicans, most of the Methodists, the United Presbyterians, the (US) UCC and the (Canadian) UCC, and I believe the Orthodox, among others, hold to a definition of “inspiration” which avers that the Bible is the work of human beings through whose individual human-and-fallible persons God worked, in one way or another – not the “inerrant verbatim inspiration” position of the Few But Loud.
If by “cherry picked” you mean, “print the portion of the site relevant to the question at hand”, then, yes, I did cherry pick.
And I’m not sure how much more representative I can get than the ELCA website. Anyone who doesn’t agree with it probably shoud reconsider their membership in an ELCA Church; so I feel pretty confident in saying it’s ELCA teaching.
>And even that discussion is meaningless when those who self-identify as Christians can disagree widely on what is required to be faithful to Christ’s ideals. Effectively, the term “Christian” has no meaning whatsoever.
I don’t think this objection renders “Christian” meaningless, but instead that it just renders it insufficient to predict how a self-identified Christian would behave.
For example it’s still perfectly meaningful to poll people to see if their attitudes are correlated with this “self identified Christian” status, or count whether people in this group get more abortions than others, or see if praying for their success in surgery works better than it does for others, or asking all sorts of other plausible reasons. And it’s very easily and objectively testable, whereas the other meanings of “Christian” typically aren’t so easy to test. When you ask somebody if they “are a Christian”, they either answer “yes” or they don’t answer “yes”.
But if all the commandments in the gospels are optional, neither answer tells me anything about that person I didn’t know before. Do they love their enemies? I don’t know. Do they care for the poor and downtrodden? I don’t know. Do they believe Jesus is the son of god? I don’t know.
Is there anything I can conclude with any certainty about a person who says, “I am a Christian”?
No, not really. Except in the statistical sense that more Christians are likely to believe certain things than random non Christians. That doesn’t help you much with individuals.
As I pointed out in a thread a while back ( about what “Christian” means I think ), “Christian” is nearly an information free term. There’s no central authority that can say “yes” or “no”, no official membership list, and no objective standard to say who is and isn’'t Christian. A Christian is someone who calls himself a Christian.
I don’t think any Christian believes commandments are optional. But there is much disagreement about what the commandments are and their order of importance.
It may help to think of Christianity as a set of closely related sects rather than a single religion. There will generally be agreement in each sect, but not across them. You’ll find the same thing in any of the large religions.
If you really want to know the specific beliefs of a person, the only way to find out is to ask them. Religion (like politics) is complicated and labels are simple, imprecise shortcuts.
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.
Jesus singles out children and simple-minded people as those to whom God has revealed His message most plainly. These are people who, possibly in most cases, have read little or nothing at all. It is a mistake to attach analytic mastery and finesse to salvation.
It is untenable to hold a position which undermines itself. Surely, you have not fooled yourself into believing that you have not picked and chosen to suit yourself. Look at your post.
>Is there anything I can conclude with any certainty about a person who says, “I am a Christian”?
>No, not really. Except in the statistical sense that more Christians are likely to believe certain things than random non Christians. That doesn’t help you much with individuals.
>I don’t think any Christian believes commandments are optional. But there is much disagreement about what the commandments are and their order of importance.
Well, that’s the thing. The self-identification as Christian is interesting even though it doesn’t let you conclude anything with certainty about the individual. It is interesting to me to hear, for example, what role self-identifying Christians play in an election. The idea that information only speaks to statistical tendencies is fine by me, and such information is often very valuable and useable.
And it’s not as though there is some competing definition of “Christian” that actually does let you conclude anything with certainty about an individual. Suppose for the sake of argument that a person believes that a “true Christian” would not steal. Is there a sufficiently good test of true Christianity that he could apply to other people that would perfectly predict, forever after the test, that certain people would never steal?
The idea of acceptance of the Ten Commandments isn’t even close. How many people would say they agree with them but would also violate them sometimes? Humans tend to be pretty far from absolutists, in practice.
I cannot prove that. As the many logical, and intelligent debaters on this board know, I cannot prove much of anything about faith, or about Christ. I also tend to feel that the entire . . . habit of rhetorical justification of faith does harm to the person doing it. But that too, is not something I can prove. It is just something I believe.
I accept no authority of this world on the subject of who is a Christian, other than me, and my authority ends with me, and Christ. I have His assurance that I will be subject to his Judgment. Part of that is biblical, but the biblical part never really worked for me.
The statement that few Christians live according to the faith they profess is a self evident reality. The fact is that few Muslims live their lives in surrender to the will of Allah, few Hindus live their lives in exact obedience to their Gods, few Buddhists entirely eliminate the drive to want and seek worldly things. Not all that many Republicans live according to the dictates of their political beliefs, and few Scientists live their lives according to the principles of scientific laws. Being a human being is a tough gig, especially if you start expounding about how it should be done, before you finish doing it yourself.
I don’t believe that I am responsible to “bring you to Christ.” He knows where you are, and, as it turns out, He’s already there, so I don’t have to bring you anywhere to get you to Him. What I do have to do is beware that I don’t make you reject him because I say I am one of His, and I’m an asshole. See, even assholes can be Christians. Which is not a bad thing, but they should shut up about it.
>I don’t think any Christian believes commandments are optional.
>Well no, I’m afraid there are plenty of Christians who treat the commandments as optional…
These are hardly in disagreement. I don’t believe holiday food is good for me, but I sure had a lot of it.
