“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.
That because my one and only point has not been effectively engaged or refuted. What I believe is not the point (my profile shows MY affiliation - does yours?)
You claim to have refuted the OP is duly noted. I don't know if he has accepted defeat. To repeat myself, again, I find the differences in conclusions from the same sola scriptura basis to be fascinating.
There should be much more of this in the RF. Breathe some new air into the place. Why don't the Calvinists and Arminians go at each other like their namesakes did?