Posted on 04/11/2013 11:16:18 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Thanks, GPH, very helpful post.
Douglas, the only thing I would add is that when someone is expressing an opinion, that doesn’t mean it’s a lie. I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Think of it as a law thing. God’s law says don’t bear false witness against your neighbor. If I say someone is telling a lie, when I have no proof, that’s bearing false witness. If carm or one of us sincerely believes ucog “Binitarianism” is contrary to the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, and therefore disqualifies ucog as a Christian denomination, then that’s an opinion, and I happen to agree with it. You can always question the validity of an opinion on objective grounds, but an opinion is not a lie. It’s just a belief. To prove a lie you have to prove motive, and to do that you’d either have to have a smoking gun, or you’d have to know their heart as well as God does. So for me it’s just safer staying with the Biblical analysis. Just sayin …
Peace,
SR
I do not have a dog in this specific fight. I am enjoying the (rare on this board) contention between SS believers.
All you have done is post YOUR beliefs and some Bible verses. If your opponent is skillful, he can counter each and every one. Scripture can be worked that way.
The winner will be the more skillful debater.
We need more of this intra-SS debate in the RF. The same old, same old is boring.
“I do not have a dog in this specific fight.”
I don’t know, it sounded like you endorsed the UCG’s thinly veiled polytheism and their “God-Family” equivocation, complete with believers joining the Godhead, amongst other absurd statements.
Maybe you just don’t want to put your dog out there, since the poor thing will get mauled by the scripture.
“All you have done is post YOUR beliefs and some Bible verses. If your opponent is skillful, he can counter each and every one. Scripture can be worked that way.”
That’s true!
2Pe_3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
It doesn’t change the fact that you’ll be doing it to your damnation though.
Come now, let us reason together, and not be relativists. But if all you want to tell us is that you don’t really care what is true or not, maybe you’d be better off keeping it to yourself. It’s not productive. This IS a place for communication, you know.
By the way, what is an SS?
Sola scriptura
If you last here, you’ll catch on.
“If you last here, you’ll catch on.”
Hopefully you won’t last long here defending the theology of cults.
i been here going on 15 years. I’ve seen ‘em come and go.
“i been here going on 15 years. I’ve seen ‘em come and go.”
Usually, when someone believes that polytheism, and even the concept of becoming God is based on the Bible, they go to hell.
Trolling me and refusing to support anything you say isn’t going to help you in that regard.
Save it, I’m not part of Mystery Babylon, thus reject their efforts at confusion.
Buy into it at your own peril.
And how! He rose from the dead just to be there.
Keep consigning FReepers to hell, and I can almost guarantee your stay here will be short.
“Keep consigning FReepers to hell, and I can almost guarantee your stay here will be short.”
That must be why you consigned me with a cult, as if we were all the same, and pronounced his arguments as being “based” on the Bible.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Don-O.
It’s best not to antagonize someone to give indirect support to a non-Christian religion that claims polytheism is taught in the scripture, that man can join the Godhead, and that their church is the one true church on Earth (everyone else is in a counterfeit church) and that we must receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands by ministers of his religion.
But, hey, apparently telling me that his arguments are based on the Bible was somehow productive for your pet religion, whatever it is.
It’s two different interpretations of the Bible. I don’t accept either one. You have one interpretation. D KC has another one.
I accept at face value that both of you are presenting your interpretations in good faith. Getting angry with me accomplishes nothing.
“It’s two different interpretations of the Bible.”
And one is obviously false.
Isa_44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Can you please interpret this scripture in such a way as to make it prove polytheism?
Good luck on that.
“I don’t accept either one.”
You are not Trinitarian? Or, maybe, you agree with him that the Trinity is not in the scripture? You’re going to need to be a lot more specific.
“I accept at face value that both of you are presenting your interpretations in good faith.”
His faith is that the UCG is the one true church of God on Earth, that there is more than one God, that human kind can join into the Godhead, that one must follow Jewish dietary and festival days, and that you and I are in a counterfeit Church, assuming you are not a member of his religion.
Is this a “good” faith or a “bad” one?
“Getting angry with me accomplishes nothing.”
Then you probably shouldn’t have started off your first post by claiming his position is based on the Bible, and then led your second one by suggesting you are indifferent to the heretics beneath you.
Get this straight. I am typing slowly. I do not subscribe to either of these two Bible interpretations. I never affirmed anything on this thread except that adherents of sola scriptura can come to differing conclusions.
“You do err in proclaiming what other people believe.
Get this straight. I am typing slowly. I do not subscribe to either of these two Bible interpretations. “
Let’s think about this for a second. So you enter a thread entitled “Counterfeit Christianity,” and presumably you read the entire thread. There is a footlong post by me, and others, documenting that the religion being promoted by the OP is a polytheist cult that denies that we are all real Christians, that his church only possesses the Holy Spirit, that his church is the one true church on Earth, and that salvation is possible after death, among a host of other things.
And so then you write a post which reads:
“But, it’s all based on the Bible. Oh dear; what is to be done?”
I ask you if you are a member of his cult, and assert that his position is NOT based on the Bible. And if you think that it is, bring it on.
You then follow this up with:
“I do not have a dog in this specific fight. I am enjoying the (rare on this board) contention between SS believers.”
So not only did you not answer my question or my challenge, you deliberately joined together Christians with a non-Christian religious cult under the title “SS believers.” And all this while claiming you don’t have a “dog” in this fight, wherein the very central tenets of Christianity are being discussed.
And, apparently, your big point, is that two people have differing opinions, as if this were a profound discovery no one ever thought of before. And then you won’t even say it straight whether you are a Trinitarian, or if you believe the Trinity can be found in the scripture, and you avoided and ignored a direct challenge to “interpret” polytheism out of the scriptures to prove your argument that the scriptures can be interpreted any way someone wants.
So think on all of this, and coming into my shoes, can you tell me what it is I’m supposed to think about your posts? Do you have an argument I should consider seriously? Have you proved your point? And was there a point you were even making?
Well, after I myself wrote all of that and thought on it, I realized there was no point in the exchange.
I brought up the point to illustrate truth. I don't think there's any way to say that Santa Claus is truth. I've seen you put up reasons, but it's not truth. And when Santa Claus is mixed up Christianity then it's blending a truth and lie together.
2Jn 1:1 The Elder, To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all those who have known the truth,
2Jn 1:2 because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever:
2Jn 1:3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
2Jn 1:4 I rejoiced greatly that I have found some of your children walking in truth, as we received commandment from the Father.
I just don't think Jesus Christ or the first disciples would ever have condoned, encouraged, or found excuses for this. Truth is a precious commodity and teaching our children about the Lord is serious business with no room for fairy tales or fables.
2Pe 1:16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
The Catholic denomination calls Mormonism a new religion, it isn’t Christian.
Agree completely...the article points out the error that soon started to come into the church.
Even the churches you mention in those links may still have some little wheat remaining, but the leadership is gone on a tare. :)
Oh.....good one! :-) Took me a minute to see it.
They have long since substituted human authority for Scriptural authority, systematically displacing clear Biblical teaching for impulses issuing from the wickedness of the human heart. They are not at all representative of what traditional Biblical Christianity produces.
Okay here's where we will probably differ. I believe that traditional Christianity departed from biblical Christianity not so long after the biblical era was over. Things such as the Lord's holy days and his sabbaths WERE observed by the early church. Once the traditional church deemed it "okay" to overturn one of the ten commandments (the sabbath commandment) it was only a matter of time before lawlessness infiltrated the church. Today it's completely off the rails. Homosexual ordinations, money grubbing televangelists, Christianity for profit, you name it and there's probably a so called Christian church that embraces it.
Christianity as a whole is so bad now because all restraint is gone. Lawlessness is the order of the day. The devil knows his time is short...use whatever analogy you like.
The examples I cited went far beyond an opinion. For example the cite said that UCG did not believe in the full divinity of Jesus Christ. It's not a matter of opinion, it's not factual. This is easily determined by doing just a modicum of research.
sincerely believes ucog “Binitarianism” is contrary to the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, and therefore disqualifies ucog as a Christian denomination,
This is a matter of biblical record. Granted some trinitarians cannot help but to read current beliefs and ideas into the past so patience is certainly called for when trying to educate others about this. And I'm perfectly willing to grant that this belief falls outside of traditional Christianity. But to claim the mantle of "Christian" based on a belief that biblical Christians never held is something that's just not right.
Why do think you have to follow dietary laws and holy days, but not circumcision?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.