Re: Orthodoxy (was Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered)

I don't endorse any of what Michael worries about below. I believe I'd
score 100% on
most any test of Christian orthodoxy. However, what I was getting at
is that it's very easy to
attach additional baggage to what the Scriptures teach. For example
the founding pastor of our church
is an amillenialist. At least one family left our church because he
didn't explicitly teach
the Dispensational view of the end times. That's adding to orthodoxy.
And there are many more examples, including expecting church members to
be YEC's (which Henry Morris
recommended in one of the ICR pubs a number of years ago)

On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, at 02:44 PM, Michael Roberts wrote:

> Tomorrow we celebrate the birth of Christ. Why?
>
> What is the point if he was just a wandering semi-educated Jewish
> preacher?
> Why if the VB is a myth, and the resurrection is the reflections of the
> early church and as Dominic Crossan argues stray dogs ate the body of
> Jesus?
>
> Is Jesus the redeemer and saviour or just a very good godly teacher who
> inspires us to love?
>
> How do we answer those questions and it is clear that we can in a way
> which
> denies all effective Christian content. If we deny his divinity we
> also deny
> him as redeemer which is what Unitarians do. Erasmus Darwin described
> Unitarianism as a feather bed to catch a falling Christian. That is an
> apt
> remark as it often happens as Christians drift away (or are repelled by
> evangelical excesses) into either some kind of liberal Christianity
> which is
> weak on Redemption -e.g.. Peacocke, Spong etc or a general theism.
>
> The problem is that some evangelicals try to prove too much and regard
> the
> gospels as a photograph and not 4 portraits, which are at times
> Impressionistic. An ultra-inerrant bible with a genetically perfect
> Jesus
> creates unbelief.
>
> That will be enough handgrenades for Christmas eve.
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Hamilton" <whamilton51@comcast.net>
> To: "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com>
> Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>; "Dr. Blake Nelson" <bnelson301@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:55 PM
> Subject: Orthodoxy (was Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered)
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, at 04:53 AM, Don Winterstein wrote:
>
>> Are those Jesus Seminar scholars Christian? Some are certain to have
>> unorthodox views of Jesus. I don't believe that all such unorthodox
>> scholars are going to hell any more than I believe all Arians are
>> going to hell. In other words, I think it's possible to have saving
>> faith outside of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy affects only the mind; the
>> heart is more important.
>>
> So why is orthodoxy so important (if it is important)?
> I would answer that it's a means of guarding against drift. If a
> deviating belief is permitted, no matter how innocuous, another
> deviation can in principle be built on it, and after a few
> "generations" you have genuine heresy. But are we trusting in Jesus
> Christ when we ruthlessly suppress all suspect beliefs? I suspect that
> the church -- the evangelical branch anyway -- has sacrificed
> intellectual progress in the pursuit of orthodoxy.
>
> Bill Hamilton Rochester, MI 248 652 4148
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bill Hamilton Rochester, MI 248 652 4148
Received on Tue Dec 23 17:52:45 2003