Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Guest 1,
First off you are misrepresenting my words. I never it wasn't "true." I said an extreme literal interpretation of "one flesh" was not required by scripture.
The Lord also said that the elements of the Lord's Table were His Body and His blood. But I don't see you siding with the Catholics on taking that literally.
I'm not against interpreting an "organic" aspect of our relationship with the Lord. I'm against taking it to such an extreme that it becomes more important than the relational aspect. This is what I think Lee did.
If you want to interpret verses like "one flesh" in such an extreme way, that's your business. But's it's certainly not required by scripture. I prefer a more moderate interpretation because that seems more in line with the general thrust of Scripture, more balanced, and in keeping with the general view of most Christian teachers.
Further as I've said I see a manifest problem with the extreme pushing of the "organic" aspect. My question is, honestly, how does doing that help your Christian life? Does it help you know the Lord better? Does it make you more like Him? Does it cause you to love and serve others the way He did? If it does, fine. Or are you pushing it just because Lee pushed it?
My personal experience with taking that extreme "organic" way is that it tends to get one in the realm of a kind of impersonal relationship with the Lord, where one thinks one is being changed by the process of being in a kind of organic flow, when actually no changing is going on at all because one is not focused on actually becoming more like Christ in temperament and attitude by way of direct obedience to His word and personal leading, but rather on being in a kind of abstract flowing experience of "dispensing."
This manifestly results in a church movement that thinks it is the center of what God is doing while it goes about trashing all other Christian groups, suing other Christians for millions of dollars, assassinating the character of former members, writing bizzare websites like www.afaithfulword.org, and generally treating the people Christ died for as means to an end. Definitely not the expression of Christ. |
Your words were “the expression cannot be literal”. I responded that the expression was literal. The word used in the Bible is not figurative but literal. I also provided some scientific references to support it being literal and I used your analogy to show that it is literal.
I do not understand your use of the term “extreme literal interpretation”. Does that mean that all “literal” interpretations of “one flesh” are extreme, or is there an extreme variation of a literal interpretation?
How do you know who I side with? Have we ever discussed the Lord’s table? I believe the account in the Gospel where the Lord says “take, eat, this is my body which is given for you” is a plain word where Jesus is establishing the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. Sacraments are sacred rites with special significance. He is explaining in clear words the special significance of this rite. I have no idea why the Catholics couldn’t figure this out. So yes, I take this scripture literally to mean the Jesus is establishing the Lord’s table as a sacrament that we must keep and He is also explaining the significance of the bread and wine.
It seems you are drawing a connection between the bad behavior of the LRC/WL/LSM with this teaching. I disagree, not that the behavior was bad, but that there is a connection with this teaching.