Is a Literal Reading of the Bible a Relatively New Gimmick?

I have to admit that I'm pretty offended that a nutball like Luther, who said the devil used to come defecate in his room as an attack on him, and who once "routed the devil with a fart" should be compared to a respected man like Origen, who gave his life for what he believed.That Origen struggled with lust like virtually every other young Christian man who has ever lived should hardly be translated to "had an intense desire for young girls." Yes, and almost every other young man I've ever known has had "an intense desire for young girls." There is no indication anywhere that Origen had any unusual desires.By the way, castration is supposed to remove the desire as well, due to hormones. I suspect your statement that he was tormented for the rest of your life is just more bad information about one of the greatest Christian men who ever lived.Just so you know, a century after Origen the church made the Trinity a big issue, and this is the only reason he was ever condemned as a heretic. Origen was a prolific writer, and it was much harder to twist his words to make them sound like the doctrine the church settled on (Athanasius' doctrine) than say, Tertullian, who agrees completely with Origen's views, but is considered orthodox. Origen was considered the greatest teacher alive in his time, and it wasn't until two centuries later that he was condemned by a church that would have been unrecognizable to the church of Origen's day.My references about Luther come from a book called "A World Lit Only by Fire" by William Manchester, but a small list of his bizarre thoughts and activities can be found at Page Not Found - Freedom From Religion Foundation. A Google search will find you much more, including his intense anti-Semitism.My statements about Origen and Tertullian come from their own writings in the Ante-Nicene Father series, and the details about Origen's life can be found in the introductions there or many places on the web.[This message has been edited by truthlover, 02-10-2004]

Who do you mean by Christians? If you mean the lineage that most would use, from the early church fathers, through the Catholic church and the Protestants (plus some earlier "protesters," such as the Waldensians), then your assertion is false.I'm not sure what you would list as the standard. "Bible believers" of today don't agree on salvation or baptism, or even what faith means (re: So Great Salvation by Charles Ryrie vs. The Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur). The differences between modern believers and the church fathers are even more numerous. Are you even aware of the terms "apostolic tradition" or "rule of faith"? They were central to the fathers, and they included things that really no one believes today.Did you know that the same council that produced the Nicene Creed (which was, of course, the Council of Nicea) also produced a "canon," saying that anyone who joined the military "like a dog returning to his own vomit" should be banned from the communion table for up to 13 years? The fathers are notoriously anti-war, and Clement of Alexandria says that the reason that the early church did not use musical instruments (yes, he said that, and my "church" uses musical instruments), because musical instruments were used by armies in war.Anyway, the assertion that "Christian scriptural interpretation, by definition and within a small range of dissent, has always been very similar" doesn't have any truth to it at all.

I can't list any groups prior to Luther that could have been called literalists, but I do have a suggestion on interpreting what you see.I think even the fathers were somewhat literal when it came to commands and some other things. Theophilus has a timeline from Adam to his present day, and he obviously took the history found in the Old Testament very literally. Others, I think Justin Martyr is one, uses dates in the Old Testament to argue that Hebrew wisdom preceded Greek wisdom.You might also try the Waldensians, who go back to the 13th century, although not by that name. I think the Catholics originally called them "the poor." They were noted for taking the Sermon on the Mount quite literally (and worse yet, for living by it!).Also, the Anabaptists, with names like Felix Manz, Conrad Grebel, and Georg Blaurock, had to be literalists. They are contemporaries of Luther and Zwingli, but they are quite a separate group (they've evolved into Amish and Mennonites, which is interesting on an evolution board, because the Amish, descended from only 46 original families, have some genetic problems as a result).What's the definition of being literalists? Tertullian's doctrinal battles (c. AD 200) with the gnostics are very literal, in my opinion, and of course, I mentioned Theophilus' literal view of OT history.My take would be that the fathers took prophecy figuratively, but not history.

Pale of orthodoxy, huh? Am I hearing a Hank Hanegraaf listener?Evangelicals represent a pretty small portion of Christian history, and it was all of Christian history Brian brought up. It really should be no surprise that there is some agreement among one group. That's like saying there's a broad agreement between numerous Roman Catholics.It's also interesting that in the context of this thread you call it "the pale of orthodoxy." That sounds like you're convince the evangelicals are right.Of course, in the end, I really don't agree with you even on evangelicals. Are Episcopalians evangelical? I suspect Presbyterians would qualify. Lutherans, too, I imagine. Baptists? Now you have a difference so great that it affects who goes to heaven and who is tortured by God in blistering flames forever because of their evil deeds. Lutherans believe in an efficacious child baptism, while Baptists say that is a gospel of works, and you know that if the Lutherans, Paul, or an angel from heaven preaches any other Gospel, they must be CONDEMNED.What about the Church of Christ? Are they evangelicals? UPC? I think those would both be considered evangelical, but I'm also sure Hank H. would put them outside the "pale of orthodoxy."Well, all that's probably off topic, anyway, but only slightly. Brian asked about literalism, and you said generally literalists agree. I don't see that as true no matter how hard you try to stretch the definition of the word agree.

If it appeared sad, it would have appeared sad to me a long time ago. I've always been amazed at your incredible penchant for study. Astounding!At first, I thought I had nothing to offer in your thread, because I knew you would want something way more in depth than I'm willing to go. Then I remembered your love for study, and I knew all I had to do was suggest directions, so I'm not surprised I helped. It's easy to help someone like you.Hey, everyone has their strengths and quirks. I look forward to reaping some benefit from your research, as I'm sure you will. I'll try and help along the way if there's any way I can. My church history reading isn't real great, but I read the fathers for years, and I'm familiar with not just their texts (although I've forgotten a lot), but even their feel.

Ooh, ooh...good one! This will be fun to watch. Can we do Heb 6:2-6 afterwards?

I guess I am too dumb to realize that, because I have no intention of recanting the truth. By the way, I mentioned the anti-semitism in passing. I didn't know you would consider it the center of my post. Nonetheless, the charge is true. This website has a very kind treatment of what he said about Jews.The issue to me with Luther is not his dislike of the Jews or Jewish beliefs; it is his willingness to translate that dislike into active persecution. Here's a pertinent quote from the web site above:

quote:

---

...but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!

---

quote:

---

However, we must avoid confirming them in their wanton lying, slandering, cursing, and defaming. Nor dare we make ourselves partners in their devilish ranting and raving by shielding and protecting them, by giving them food, drink, and shelter, or by other neighborly {the site ends the sentence here}

---

This is the final straw:

quote:

---

With prayer and the fear of God we must pratice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengenance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

​

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn...

​

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed....

---

It goes on to "seventh."And, then, of course, he has to include his extraordinary preoccupation with flatulence:

quote:

---

Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?

---

One history book I read said that Luther's actions as an older man were so bad that even his most favorable biographers have trouble justifying them.Luther formed his own religion and claimed to have regular nighttime encounters with the devil that almost always included feces and flatulence. By Luther's description, his followers were a terrible example. By the description of Menno Simons, a contemporary, Luther's followers were more prone to drunkenness and immorality than non-Lutherans. Luther had to reject three books of the Bible to hold to his brand new doctrines. He said that James, a revered leader of the early church, wrote a letter with nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.I thought it was horrifying to compare Luther to Origen. Origen was a man of peace who died for the faith. Luther was a man of war, violence, self-will and extremely bizarre delusions. (Do you really believe that the devil attacked Luther by coming into his room at night and defecating on his rug.)I'll conclude with another wonderful quote of Luther's. "The world is a giant anus, and I am a stool, about to be pressed out of it."I'm sorry, I'm not backing up on Luther.He was a great politician, who, like so many others, opposed the taxes of the Catholics, and he had the personality to rise to the occasion, unite the oppressed of Europe and be part of a major overthrow of Catholic governments. Of course, he then urged Lutheran governments to wipe out the peasants when they revolted, telling them that the blood of the peasants on their sword would earn them salvation.