>> accused Christians of “arrogance” for asserting that Mormonism is a false religion.
A point you can’t sustain without misrepresenting #116.
The brotherhood of Christianity is not yours to define nor limit regardless of what you think you know and understand.
The brotherhood of Christianity is not yours to define nor limit regardless of what you think you know and understand.
***Let’s hear your definition. If no one is allowed to define the terms, then where do you even begin the debate? How about where CS Lewis set to define it in his book “Mere Christianity”?
“A point you can’t sustain without misrepresenting #116.”
And yet you turn around and write, immediately after:
“The brotherhood of Christianity is not yours to define nor limit regardless of what you think you know and understand.”
IOW, it’s ‘arrogance’ to condemn Mormonism or other anti-Trinitarian religious groups as cults, even though all of holy scripture and 2,000 years of Christianity back me up. You’re also appealing to a relativist view of the facts, since I cannot define anything based on those facts since it is impossible to “know and understand” anything.
If you do not “know and understand” these things, what makes you think everybody has that problem?
If this isn’t what you mean, then what do you mean? Is Mormonism a false religion? Is Athanasius incorrect to say that all Christians confess the trinity? Is Paul correct to declare that anyone who teaches a different Gospel than his is accursed?
These silly little games we play with the relativists are obnoxious. We play them EVERY TIME the LDS or other weird groups pop up.
Then neither is it yours.
You can't be telling him he can't define it without you, by default, defining it yourself.
Because nothing gives you the right over someone else to dictate definitions.