Posted on 04/19/2013 10:21:32 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Thanks, Jim.
A) When has greetings_puny_humans ever claimed to be, or ever used the term "fundamentalist"?
B) What (Catholic?) seminarians have come onto FR before today, pretending to be fundamentalists? What were their FReeper handles?
C) How are you yourself using the term fundamentalist?
The term [Fundamentalism] was born when conservative Protestants in early-20th-century America committed themselves to defend the five "fundamentals" of their faith -- the inerrancy of the Bible, virgin birth and deity of Jesus, doctrine of atonement, bodily resurrection of Jesus, and His imminent return.
-- from the thread The many forms of fundamentalism
Fundamentalist: A term created during the turn-of-the-20th-century Protestant church splits to define those who held to the “fundamentals” of Christianity—the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Jesus and his literal resurrection from the dead. The term is now considered pejorative. (Wheaton College philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga famously observed, “The full meaning of the term...can be given by something like ‘stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine.’”)
-- from the thread New Kids In The Flock
Well, my goodness. That doesn’t seem to have worked out so very well for you.
There are quite a few churches claiming to be the one, true Church. The true Church is the body of believers, however. They are to be found in a variety of different Christian churches with a variety of differing beliefs and practices, but they do not vary in belief regarding core, salvific matters, the good news, the Gospel. I’ve not witnessed the FReeper in question err about this.
Therefore I’ll continue to maintain that these apsersions are very unfair, even if I don’t necessarily agree with all that his apparent church teaches.
Begging your pardon, but in general I don’t snap to it for noobs with an apparent Napoleonic Complex, and as I’ve repeatedly stated, I’ve been defending an individual.
If one wishes to argue with an adherent of a particular set of beliefs distinctive to a particular denomination, Might I suggest that one might want to find someone who adheres to them?
Seems clear enough to me. But, there seems to be some difficulty in this regard occurring on the opposite end of this exchange.
I suggest prayer.
“I’ve been defending an individual.”
Who is pimping for the UCG by posting their articles and arguments.
“distinctive to a particular denomination,”
And here you are defending the UCG by calling them a denomination of Christianity.
“I suggest prayer.”
That’s certainly what’s needed here, as I can’t seem to get you to read a few sentences or do a bit of checking of your own claims by any human power.
Is this presumed “pimping” of a particular church really at issue here? There have been other threads posted during your brief time on FR that could be described in such a manner, yet I don’t recall seeing you there.
One thing that should be clear by now, is that I am not even remotely “pimping” a particular denomination or sect. There are some with which I agree more than others. Some veer far enough away that I’ll go so far as to say that they’re no longer Christian.
I am not going to say that the OP is not Christian because I’ve never witnessed him erring upon core salvific matters, regardless of the denomination to which he presumably belongs. Upon this you and I differ, clearly.
If you wish to argue finer points of a particular denomination I strongly suggest you find someone who belongs to it. I can’t say it any more plainly.
Now, you have a good evening. This has gone on quite long enough.
“Is this presumed “pimping” of a particular church really at issue here?”
Looks like we’ve finally come full circle, so I’ll just repeat my original response to the complaints that I said anything:
“People have a right to know who it is that is offering them “edification” so as to be wary of subtle errors of groups they consider non-Christian. It’s not being rude. It’s called a disclaimer.”
There we go.
“For education and edification”
Ladies and gentlemen, take with great caution any “education and edification” offered by members of the United Church of God. They are a polytheistic religious group who believe that the “works” that are “expected” by God include holding to the Jewish festival days and dietary laws, as well as receiving the Holy Spirit from the laying on of hands by right believing UCG-believers. (You don’t have the Holy Spirit until someone from their church gives “it” to you. They also disbelieve that the Holy Spirit is God, and argue that He is a mere force as well.)
The following anti-Trinitarian thread has more information on the UCG in response to the OP, documenting their polytheistic position.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3008736/posts
Because of your chosen "Handle" are we supposed to think you are some type of "wanna be" deity.....or something. I followed some of your postings on a few of Douglas' threads and this seems to come across somewhat......a general disdain for "puny humans".....of all stripes.
I've also noted that you refer quite often to things....."Jewish". You are aware, of course....that the Festivals, Sabbaths and Dietary regulations were given to all of Israel.....not just the Jews? Maybe you aren't.........that seems more likely.
I think it is somewhat silly that you have appointed yourself to be the custodian and regulator of what FReepers discuss on a theological basis at all. What I seem to gather from your rantings is the "same ole same ole" that the Main Stream Church has been palming off as Christianity for over 1700 years now. It is nothing but Regurgitated Paganism that seeks a home between the pages of scripture and continues to be.......quite unsuccessful.
When you find passages in scripture that inform us that the other eleven tribes of Israel did not receive the instructions for the Sabbaths, Festivals and Dietary regulations as well......you'll be sure and let us all know?
“I think it is somewhat silly that you have appointed yourself to be the custodian and regulator of what FReepers discuss on a theological basis at all.”
Who says I was regulating it? We have a guy pimping a bunch of articles from a flaky religious cult ranging from issues of the Trinity down to threads on “counterfeit Christianity” (you and me). I posted a warning on this thread that it was from the UCG. In fact, it’s (a warning placed) been done in virtually every thread he’s started, and not all by me. I just did it on 3 threads. Other people have cited his United Church of God membership in the others.
“What I seem to gather from your rantings is the “same ole same ole” that the Main Stream Church has been palming off as Christianity for over 1700 years now. It is nothing but Regurgitated Paganism that seeks a home between the pages of scripture and continues to be.......quite unsuccessful.”
Oh, 1700 years? So you’re also anti-Trinitarian. Good to know.
“When you find passages in scripture that inform us that the other eleven tribes of Israel did not receive the instructions for the Sabbaths, Festivals and Dietary regulations as well......you’ll be sure and let us all know?”
Is this a reference to British Israelism that Armstrong promotes? I quoted Romans 14, and a few other passages, that don’t seem all that concerned about dietary regulations or festival days.
I do! Sending out "All Points" bulletins on a FReeper's postings..... who has been around from almost the beginning, considered to be a genuinely nice person, a conservative in thought and practice and someone who you should be glad to call your friend.....but constantly ridicule because of his beliefs? This is not an attempt to regulate what some folks should...and should not read? Shame on you!
Good grief. If you don't agree with him or his theology....then debate him. But stop the childishness. It makes you look silly!
Oh, 1700 years? So you’re also anti-Trinitarian. Good to know.
Yes...........I think the idea of a Trinitarian God Head is pagan! Especially since scripture tells us [Deuteronomy 6:4] exactly what He is. He is further defined by [John 4:24]. How some folks think Christianity began by copying the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Babylonians and other ancient religions.....arriving at a Trinity.............is just ignoring the facts!
Is this a reference to British Israelism that Armstrong promotes?
I don't know. Because scripture shows the Jews (the ones who started Judaism) as only one of twelve tribes given the Torah.......is this a justification for Armstrong? I think not....and I also think British Israelism is somewhat off kilter.
I quoted Romans 14, and a few other passages, that don’t seem all that concerned about dietary regulations or festival days.
Your interpretation of Romans 14 is just the "Same ole....same ole".....especially the purposely mistranslated Greek..... so delicately inserted by the biased interpreters to bring it in line with the paganism of the Main Stream Church.
......and then that puny little ruse, attempting to draw Mr. Robinson into the fray..........just silly.
“Do NOT follow another Freeper around from thread to thread posting warnings about him.”
I was NOT following him. I just happened to see it and posted the “watch out” so people knew what they were getting into before they started. If I was following him, you’d see me in the dozen other threads he’s been posting with his religion. It’s not personal. If I saw an LDS thread, or Jehovah’s Witness, I’d have probably put my two-cents in too.
On "open" Religion Forum threads, the main guideline is to "discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal."
Click here for more on the Religion Forum guidelines.
It's best summed up in these verses:
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
Heb 6:5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
Heb 6:6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
The unpardonable sin is rejecting the salvation one has through the holy spirit of the Lord.
Luk 12:10 "And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.
Anyone who has gone so far as to reject the salvation of the Lord once it has been given will get to the point where they blaspheme against the same life giving spirit.
So would a person who once was a member and has left the church have committed the unpardonable sin? Would they be disfellowshipped and/or marked?
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.