Wormwood said:
Ive had many conversations with mj. He rejects the Bible as the authoritative Word of God and views his own words as superior to Scripture. If that is the side you want to take, then feel free. But perhaps I am a bit more abrupt with him because of my understanding of his views that fall very far outside the range of orthodox Christianity.
ya, that bugged me too at first, but i am seeing that a valid argument can be made that people are led astray by accepting a belief system that is justified by selective Scripture reading, that does quite literally blind them to truth; the "see and not see" of the Book. As we witnessed with the "For wherever two or three are gathered" passage, a verse can be made into more than one interpretation, and can also be annulled by interpretation, not saying that the application to church admin (also) is not valid there, because it likely is, too.
17
The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.
You say that his views fall "very far" outside the range of "orthodox Christianity." So then unless he is suspected of coming here every day to deliberately deceive, perhaps it might be better to listen to him differently, from a different frame. After all, what is "orthodox Christianity" anyway? It is a frame of reference that you accept as valid, but an equally valid argument can be made that Jesus was a Jew, and that He came to remake Judaism, not abolish it. After spending most of my Christian life convinced that both of these were in error, and would be condemned, i am now coming to see that that was merely a reflection of my heart at the time, and it is me that was then condemned.
So while i agree that the Bible won't contradict Word, It certainly can be made to do so, and i am seeing that an evil thing happens, wherein the Book must first be made into Word, so that one might then present some persuasion to some belief that does not come from Word, but rather misinterpretation of the Book; or failing that, just finding some scribed up version, one that has "Easter" in it, say, because after all who reads from the Lexicon?
So i understand mjr to be reflecting an understanding of "judge by the fruit," and if he is rejecting the Book, it is possibly only because It is so easily misread, and so widely abused and scribed up. You can't scribe Word, hot on your neck, see. If Word is telling you to color eggs and buy bunnies for your kids in order to focus on Christ at Easter, then by all means do that. But when you insist that others believe the same thing, and are condemned for not believing it is when i think we run into trouble.
Orthodox Christianity might be viewed as a practical approach to following Christ, and it can be argued that following Christ cannot be made into a practical thing. Personally i am coming to see forums as a great way to pit two believers against each other, as we can witness how easy it is to get even two orthodox people arguing over some jot or tittle, forgetting that religion in any form is roundly condemned in Scripture, i could give you 20 verses off the top of my head for this concept, yet we nonetheless have many people who seek Christ religiously, at least at first, and i am minded of many people that i would call religious who nonetheless seem to have very good hearts. So this frame does not seem to be the most valid one, wadr; after all, Constantine was Orthodox, too, but the fad of putting off reconciliation and baptism until one's deathbed has faded, even if it is still practiced in spirit by the religious, who mostly seem to have Isaiah's bargain with death in mind where Christ is concerned. We are consumed with where we might be spending "eternity," when of course God is not worried about that at all. You are no use to accomplishing God's design of bringing heaven to earth after you die, and Solomon assures us that no one knows where they go when they die.
A point might be to recognize when we are applying an invalid frame for judgement of others, and neglecting to judge ourselves. You don't have to agree with mjr to find agreement with him, if you seek it. You can believe the Book is the Word if you like, and still be open to accepting that Word was with God in the beginning, and so perhaps there are truths outside your current understanding, yet to be grasped. The very worst thing one might do, imo, is to become convinced that their version is the only right one, and that no further truth can be discerned from a different perspective.
Personally i go the opposite way from mjr myself, but i see that that might be because i am a booky guy anyway, and the net gives me a search engine for an indexed Bible now, or i could not practically even use that approach. I just discovered that for every Scriptural concept there is a counter-concept, and so of course i am perceived as a troll when i go discover one in search. This has taught me that it is dangerous to suppose that you can establish a doctrine from Scripture, and as you may have noted i pretty much have a standing invitation for anyone to demonstrate an inviolable doctrine from Scripture--you practically cannot do it. While this might invalidate the Book for many, to me it is what validates it; no one debates passages of Moby Dick, after all.
Interpret however you like, but recognize that your interpretation is merely a reflection of your faith, where your heart is at iow, and this is what everyone else sees when you quote the Book for them;
your truth, not absolute truth, even if it is absolute to you. It is easy imo to end up with beliefs that God is not going to honor, and i think everyone is deceived in some way. Somethingsomething humility over pride, ya that's all i got.
