An Onerous Orthodoxy
Filed Under (dee dee's posts) by dee dee on 25-06-2005
As you may know, I am one of the owners of the TheologyWeb forum. I have been saying for quite some time now that the hyperpreterists are sounding more and more like Mormons every day. For example, check out this blog discussion.
We have a vocal Mormon apologist on TheologyWeb who just posted this question.
How does one define “Christianity”? Is it Catholicism, Baptist doctrine, Pentecostalism, Evangelicalism, etc? Evangelicals have also strayed from traditional historic Christianity in numerous ways. But they are now considered Christians; even though they were also deemed “cults” by the orthodox Christians. The irony and humor comes into play when we realize that the former “cult” which include Protestant Christians, are the ones leading the march against all other “deviant” forms of Christianity. At what point can one “deviate” and no longer be called a Christian?
Who gets to decide when exactly that line has been crossed? And why?
Boy that sounds familiar. I have zero idea what the author’s position is on hyperpreterism (there are Mormon preterists , or at least preteristic advocates BTW) - so my use of his quote is not to imply his support. However, if I did not note that this was a Mormon apologist, it could be substituted into the typical hyperpreterist arsenal.
DDW, his question hasn’t been answered…
You may not think so, but I have seen debates with BN over the years and it has been answered multiple times. However, Mormonism isn’t the issue of this post but how this exact same quote with a few words changed is typical of a group that would exclude Mormons on the same basis (and the question of orthodoxy is defended oodles of times in various articles on the site).
Dee,
As usual, the ole “lump ‘em in with the Mormons” line is used. Hmmmm….sounding more like
a Romanist every day…..(now, gee, I shouldn’t lump you in with that crowd, should I?).
Sam
Funny - though I have no issue with doing that, simply showing the similarity of the arguments. I wouldn’t like it either if I found myself sounding like a Mormon apologist. As far as Catholics - told you before, I do not have an issue with them that I would get my undies in a bunch about it.
You can see I have been busy with the new colour scheme eh?
Dee,
Great, you don’t have an issue with being lumped in with those who put the creeds on par
with Scripture. Okay. Oh, and I like the new look.
Sam
Hello Samuel, you misread my statement. The thing I would not have an issue with doing is what you thought I did in the first place - that is “lumping” hyperpreterism on some levels with Mormonism - but that is not what I did in the first post, I noted the similarity of the arguments, if anything, my intent was to lump hyperpreterism in with pseudo-Christian cults in general. As far as the RCC thing, I can handle myself with that and just because you err with the mantra of “creedalist” [why does this bring images into my head of flying monkeys and marching troops going "oh de doe - d-doe dum"] doesn’t mean that others cannot use analogies of the same class. That is an error in logic. So if you try the RCC route with me, it is painfully obvious it is untrue, and if you wish voluntarily trash your credibility like that, have at it. My point was that I do not have the fear of getting cooties from Catholics that some seem to have - so that boogeyman only makes me smile at the thrashing for some foothold that may play on the prejudices of some and the legitimate theological concerns of others - since I do not believe any of those theological issues that are of concern - have at it. Of course all of that is a deflection from my point.
And I am not down with the changes - messing with a free use template made by someone else, and incorporating PhP which I do not yet know, is a bear.