If Adam and Eve are not real and if no literal fall

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason,

I think this is an important question to ask: How do you define orthodox?

I ask because in my experience Mormons are very unclear on this matter. For example when you say "you aren't orthodox" I think you really mean "You don't lean towards literalist/fundamentalist interpretations of scripture." Historically, that is just plain wrong. I could be wrong that this is how you see matters, but that's the impression I get from interacting with you online.

Orthodox (small "o") in Christianity has a very specific meaning, it usually means you accept the ecumenical councils. That's it. Sometimes, it's even more loose, in that accepting the first six or the first four is sufficient to be orthodox. Orthodox (again, small "o") have been all over the map in how literally they take the Bible.

That is a good question. I think you are correct that I am defining it as more literalist/fundamentalist. But it is certainly confusing. Is it really historically wrong? It seems to me, and I am not expert so I could be wrong, that historically orthodoxy was more narrowly defined. But more recently, and I am not sure how long, it seems that all Christians need to do is agree on a few basic then they can differ widely on what at least from someone who was brought up in a more rigid doctrinal system, to be significant issues.

Take the current thread I started. Hoops believes without a literal Adam,Eve and fall of man there is no Christianity, no need for a savior. That seems pretty essential. Yet you and Huck feel quite fine in interpreting this figuratively, symbolically and as a metaphor for the general sinful state of human beings. So we still need a savior. So is this essential. I would love to read what Hoops thinks of your views and whether they are to far off to be considered Orthodox.

[_Jason Bourne]

So all roads lead to salvation. Okay. Got it.

So apparently Hoops does not agree with Huck and Aristotle and their non literal view may be a problem????

[_huckelberry]

Not all roads lead to salvation.

[_Buffalo]

Not all roads lead to salvation.

None of them do, actually. But quite a few lead to happiness.

[_Pollypinks]

Orthodoxy, as you defined, was indeed very narrow in the early years. It has evolved into something quite different, yet with basic christian tenets that most christians would agree on. Salvation by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. Then, we go our separate ways, but I don't see this as a defining aspect of it, at least not like I used to. I think my error was aligning myself with a very narrow minded Bible study group early on, after leaving moism, and fitting in very nicely because the legalism was what I was used to. To them, absolutely no reformed church had anything good to say about squat. So I took that belief with me the first few times I visited a pres. church, and very quietly, inwardly, began to question some of the things I'd learned. And my life became enhanced because there was more intellectualism in my biblical studies, whereas before it had been limited to only the authors they wanted me to read. If you find your groove within those confines great. And I probably would still be there had they not asked me to leave after finding out my political affiliation, and my stance on abortion. It was hard to leave some of my female friends there, and my bipolar depression was long and severe that year. My husband was totally pissed, and declared we weren't going to any church anymore. But after a while we did, and a few weeks into choir I was in heaven. Pure heaven. I was so glad to get away from a "miked" worship team that blatted noise off key I could hardly stand myself. There I go again, judging. One of my worse features. And I can't tell whether Hoops is being sarcastic, or totally sincere.

[_Pollypinks]

Just to be certain, Hoops said "All roads lead to salvation." Probably after something I said, and probably not meaning it. But Luke tells us in 3:6 that all mankind will see God's salvation.

[_cksalmon]

But Luke tells us in 3:6 that all mankind will see God's salvation.

Evincing a Lucan emphasis on Christian mission to Gentiles.

But seeing is not the same thing as experiencing.

If you like Luke, though, I know you're going to just love the punchline to Jesus' parable preserved for us in Luke 19: "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'"

[_Pollypinks]

Ah, Something in my gut said the parable of the Ten Minus would come up. That's what I love about scripture! I'm not a scholar, so I can only tell you what my foot notes tell me about this parable. I don't remember discussing it in any class, though that doesn't mean it wasn't. "Those who seek spiritual gain in the gospel, for themselves and others, will become richer, and those who neglect or squander what is given them will become impoverished, losing what they have. The reference to "those enemies of mine...kill them", perhaps a reference to Jerusalem's destruction in A.D. 70. The punishment of those who rebelled and actively opposed the King (v.13) was much more severe than that of the negligent servant. It's not enough to take me away from my universalist slant.