i just thought we could say that, i dont know, i belive the bible to be true in that sense it meens what it says when it says something, or maybe we can twist it around and make it meen whatever we feel like and still be christians, like jehovas witnesses, they are often more bible beliving then most "christians" they just have a little problem whit jesus being god, and hell, but besides that they just as any christians, cant we say that that is wrong or heretic? if someone says well i belive in god but not really as the bible says, is that person still a christian? what is the definition of a heretic? how can we know? shouldent we compare what someone says whit the bible? and if they say something other what the bible says arent they heretics then? or im i wrong? as for mclaren....as i understand and read the bible he twists and make the verses meen something else then what the context of the bible says... and therefore by the bibleverses i see clarifies what a christian belives then hes not ....
_________________CHRISTIAN
maybe we can twist it (the bible) around and make it mean whatever we feel like and still be christians...what is the definition of a heretic?
_________________Mike Compton
Compton wrote:Quote:maybe we can twist it (the bible) around and make it mean whatever we feel like and still be christians...what is the definition of a heretic?The post-modern Christian like McClaren, would claim that the modern evangelical has a lack of love for their fellow man... as they believe love be modeled by Jesus. This might even be a fine notion, but then McClaren's 'love' for fellow humanity, (as well as a rather transparent contempt for the entire evangelical tradition)leads him to do away with the subsitutionary atonement, or any penal concept when it comes to sin. (As a matter of fact, I think he's done away with that too.) By removing the need for atonement for sin, McClaren believes he can show more 'Christ-like love' to humanity...who he does not see as sinful, but suffering. I admit I can empathize with his sentimental narritive of mankind as a tragic and pitiful victim of God's cosmos...but in the end I must conclude, this is ultimately an insufficent biblical depiction of how God views mankind. Now trying to unwind McClaren's 'loving' twist on scripture would seem to only reinforce his claim that most evangelical Christians are religous hateful sour pharisees...not to mention big meanies. I am an artistic person with a natural empathy for other people. Yet as a Christian, I find I need to bring my deeply felt emphathy...which is rooted in my own deeply fallen nature, into submission to scripture. To aquire an 'emphathy' for God's perspective I need to let scripture transform my mind! This is because my brand of love, which is darkened, and corrupt apart from God's word, would invariably cause me to question God's love for mankind. Likewise I think McClaren is a creative, sensitive, and thoughtful person who is sincerely hurting over the pain experienced by mankind. In this context, and perhaps as a critique against the apparent indifference from evangelicals, I believe he decided to place his own feelings and thoughts above the wisdom of God as revealed in scripture. He achieved this by simply demoting recorded scripture into the staus of 'ancient religous text'.Now because McClaren is trying to bring a sense of simple human compassion back into American Christianity (Which he sees as a modern claustrophobic self-absorbed religous superstructure), and because he's not using scripture to aquire houses and luxury cars... it's admittedly harder to decry him as a "heretic"...although I don't think he is preaching the Gospel anymore.MC
