WHAT GOD THINKS OF FUNDEMENTALISM

Buzz, you are like cool man. It's all about Love. John Lennon would be proud.

Well thanks, Tex. (Tex easier to remember than the #.) Hope you don't mind. I dono what John Lennon's philosophy about love was and which of the levels of love he most exercised in life, the eros/erotic/physical, the phileo/friendly/responsive, or the agape/need nothing in return/sacricial kind or maybe some of each??
I never followed the Beatles atol.Btw those Spirit fruit I mentioned to WT includes other goodies along with love, love being the first amd greatest. There is also listed in Galations 5:22,23 Joy, peace, gentleness, kindness, longsuffering, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-17-2004 11:34 PM

quote:

---

I plainly stated that none of these churches I've been in "insist that keeping law maintains your salvation."

---

What you say they do and what they actually do will always be different. Anyone who has grown up in and around Fundementalist America knows the fundies are ALL about their version of O.T. law.Fundie churches say conformity to God's righteous laws proves whether you got saved or not. This precise way of putting it is also telling the new convert that you better comply. The hypocrisy in all of this is that NOBODY can perform or conform to God's righteous standard.
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.(Maybe I will tell you what Paul the Pharisee of all Pharisees really thought of the Law/God's righteous standard.)You see, what you now claim, after the fact, cannot change the truth of the OP.Acts 15:1 has the church at Jerusalem demanding an external conformity to a O.T. law OR they aint saved.Fundementalists don't demand cicumcision, they demand compliance to whatever list of do's and dont's that their particular denom./church are hot for. How you dress; smoking; drinking; even dancing is a sin in some fundie churches. The compliance of not doing does not in itself make you relate to Christ. Some things are a sin and some things are not. The point is HOW to comply and the N.T. says only the Spirit in you can cause compliance. The Spirit in us only operates when acts of faith are practiced.Fundie churches do exactly what the scripture in Acts 15:1 says, only they substitute a different law. I lived my whole in the Church, I am a insider, to say fundie churches do not thump Moses is a lie.

quote:

---

The fact is that the Holy Spirit effects an undeterminate amount of good works and fruit in born again Christians.

---

Agreed.And He does it on His schedule and as the believer learns the life of faith.Fundie churches NEVER allow the Holy Spirit to do His work. Fundie doctrine of telling their members that compliance to righteous laws of God is the way you walk with God. THIS IS THE EXACT PERVERSION OF THE GOSPEL AND YOU ARE GUILTY AS CHARGED.

quote:

---

God and his son Jesus will be the judge as to who is genuinely saved and born again. Neither you, I nor anyone else has that power, nor do you, who thinks of yourself as so high and mighty have the right as a Christian to excommunicate or damn and insult anyone nor anyone's mother. This is what we Biblical fundamentalists teach and believe. You had better get it right before maligning us the way you do.

---

God is the Judge. Speaking of judging, it is you Fundies that are famous for judging.Paul, in Galatians 4, excommunicated you perverts. All I did was make an interpretation and point this out. YOUR REACTION betrayed and condemned yourself.Fundie doctrine hammers God's righteous laws morning noon and night. Then when someone unveils that which has always been in the Bible, (what God thinks of your obsession with His law) you suddenly are "Faith and Faith Alone people". Fundie doctrine is the perversion brilliantly exposed by the Holy Spirit and Paul in Galatians.

quote:

---

Biblical fundamentalists instruct Christians to maintain good works as the apostles have done over and over in the NT.

---

Just like I said earlier, you "instruct", that instruction is the faith disconnection, gospel perversion which you just don't get. EVERYONE KNOWS the Law, EVERYONE knows what a sin is. EVERYONE knows they should do good works. THE ISSUE IS HOW THIS IS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED.It is inescapable, to instruct is to do exactly what the church at Jerusalem did. They INSTRUCTED you must be cicumcised or you aint saved. You fundies do the exact same thing with different laws. Relating to God via a code of conduct is the Old way. The New way is the gospel/way of faith. Why would God repeat the Old in the New ?
He didn't. Its just that you fundies, just like the church at Jerusalem, pervert the New by conflatng the demands and goals of the Old to be the goal of the New only with Christ added on.

quote:

---

I'm quoting it so as for you to become a better Christian and get over this bad and condescending attitude of yours towards the rest of us

---

My attitude is irrelevant. A truly humble man does not have to look back to see if he was. I have debated fair and square, quoting the Bible as my source. And all you can do is snivel about the messenger in order to deflect away from the truth that hurts.Then the rest of your post is a sorry retreat into pseudo christian love. We are debating Buz, we don't even know one another, which makes all this "love one another" stuff more evidence indicating the beating you are taking.

It is sad that so much hate and so much fear can be derived just from a book.

It is a shame.My Humble InterpretationCircumcision is part of the Abrahamic Covenant which is everlasting and still applicable to his descendants. Not for Gentiles unless they were slaves. Also not issued as a means of eternal life. It appears later in the OT that circumcision is used to join the group. Again nothing to do with eternal life. Later God won’t let the uncircumcised eat of the Passover, but if you really want to join the group in Passover then get circumcised. Again nothing to do with eternal life, just a way to join the party. Abraham gave the custom of circumcision, not Moses. Again no eternal life promised. So the gentlemen from Judea have apparently misinterpreted their customs. It happens over time. This forum has seen a lot of evidence of that. Some men (so maybe a handful out of how many Jews?) began to teach incorrectly that circumcision is a must to be saved, but they didn’t include the Mosaic laws in this statement. Paul took the question to the apostles. But the Pharisees didn’t say these were necessary for eternal life. They were still functioning as their ancestors did that this was how you became part of the Jewish Community. So the apostles and the elders pondered the situation. Then Peter spoke. And then decreed: So they gave them some basics to abstain from while they learn the rules of the community. Again these things have nothing to do with eternal life, but have everything to do with being part of the Jewish Community.Even in their letter they stated that the ones claiming that circumcision was a means of eternal life were not taught that by the apostles or elders. The Mosaic laws governed the temporal life of a nation and was never stated as being a means to eternal life. See Message 66So following any Mosaic laws that are still viable today, does not negate eternal life, nor does it promise eternal life. Many of them are part of our society anyway.Whether you call them principles or standards, rules or regulations, guidelines or suggestions, or the "fruit of the spirit"; any group worshipping together, working together, or living together needs a set of behavioral guidelines for temporal situations. Just as this forum has a set of guidelines.From my experience I've noticed that the ones that cry "foul" and say that works are being promoted for eternal life, are usually the ones that aren't showing "the fruit of the spirit" and are difficult to deal with. So when you quote scripture to show they should behave better, they throw back that "faith alone gets us eternal life."Faith gets you eternal life, but fruit of the spirit makes temporal life livable.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

In Message 108, Willow hints that "maybe I will tell you what Paul the Pharisee of all Pharisees really thought of the Law/God's righteous standard."Willow, please do.It would be very interesting to hear, from your point of view, what a Roman citizen of Jewish birth from a rich family living in a Turkic province who as a Pharisee prosecuted and oversaw the death sentences of some of Jesus's primary followers before his epiphany on the road to Damascus really THOUGHT (not what he said ... but what he actually thought) about the Law.Willow, please include, if you will, what Paul thought regarding Gamaliel's interpretation and teaching of the Law since Paul was his devoted student prior to the Damascus affair.Peace. Ab.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 06-18-2004 11:03 AM

It proves the book to be true. The book tells of an ememy of God in the universe and in for us here on planet earth it's real. The book tells of Satan, the deceiver who causes all kinds of hatred, deceit, who inspires false teachers and prophets to teach deception, to persecute, to kill and to fight against God's truth and his people. It tells of not only a celestial spiritual warfare, but that the conflict between good and evil and against the true and the false will culminate here on planet earth in a time known as the latter dayes. We're there and we're in the heat of that spiritual warfare.We Biblical fundamentalists contend for those fundamentals and are despised by the enemy for it. WT is at best, an apologetic for the enemy of truth and at worst right in the ranks of the enemies offense. He hates the Biblical fundamentals which teaches that "faith without works (evidence of) is dead" and that the fruit of the Spirit of God makes a person a new person, no matter how you cut it. He lies about us who teach and believe this and he goes about like the devil "accusing the brethren," attempting his level best to damn them to hell and profanely insults them because they/we expect a change of some degree in a person after one's conversion. These traits of him are not, I say are not the fruit that the Spirit of God puts into a being who is born of that Spirit of God.The fear of God which is a good thing is in the book also, yes, not that we should look on him as terrible, but that since he is God of the universe and creator of us, there should be a respectful kind of fear that those who reject his authority, those who shake their puny fists at him and his precepts, those who insult him by worship of false gods, those who reject and missuse his holy word and those who persecute his people will have to give account to him in the judgement and those nations who reject his ways will suffer for it as has been proven in history.

Purple:This post of yours is way above the head of Randy Thor.He once asked me why Jesus had to die ?I would like to address your points but only if you say so. If not, then thanks anyway.WT

Dear Willowtree;

quote:

---

"fundementalism" means "crusaders for Mosaic law". The church at Jerusalem merely grafted Christ onto Moses. The Fundementalists do the same. Luther, in Table Talk, speaking to the "fundies" of his day said "they got Jesus on their lips but Moses in their heart." So do you Anderson.

---

Now what if I redefine the word "satanist" to be someone with your beliefs, does that make you a satanist? No, it would make me look dumb but it wouldn't make you a satanist any more than your redefinition makes me a fundamentalist. Plus as I have very patiently been repeatedly explaining to you, as a Christian I don't follow the Mosaic law, had bacon just the other day as a matter of fact, so there. (LOL) You have put yourself in the position, by your insistence that I am a "fundementalism" when I know that I am not, of saying that you know what I believe better than I do. I don't think ether of us knows the other well enough to successfully make such an argument.I am disheartened to hear that you reject the book of James, perhaps you should list all the Bible books you reject so that I don't try to base my arguments on verses you reject. As I pointed out in my last post.

quote:

---

What James stated in Acts was; (Acts 15:28-29) "we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication." and what Paul wrote the Galatians; (Galatians 5:19-21) "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these. As to these things I am forewarning YOU, the same way as I did forewarn YOU, that those who practice such things will not inherit God's kingdom." The two are speaking in agreement. There is no contradictions or conflict in what the Bible teaches, such things only exist in the minds of those who have yet to come to a better understanding of God's word.

---

In Galatians 5:19-21 Paul states the same basic rules as James and states that those who practice these will not inherit the Kingdom, so how is there a conflict between the two when they teach the same thing? I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from with the principle over rule thing. My point is that the principles need to based on something. If you have someone join you in your belief but has many wives and likes to fool around and doesn't think it is a sin, what do you do? How do you show him that it is a sin if his conscience doesn't brother him about it? Paul stated that he wouldn't have know what sin was if it hadn't been for the law. (Romans 7:7) "Really I would not have come to know sin if it had not been for the Law; and, for example, I would not have known covetousness if the Law had not said: "You must not covet."" While not under the law, it is a guide as to what God considers to be a sin, otherwise it would be up to everyone to make up their own mind and there would be no agreement as to what was and what was not a sin. It is only because you have been raised in a christian environment exposed to the values based on the principles found in the bible that you know what it is, you have taken it for granted, but without this you wouldn't know what was a sin ether. So in the end, you have come full circle and are arguing against your foundation for your own conscience like a cat bitting it's tail. In oriental countries, they do not view man as sinful at all, because they lack exposure to biblical standards. Without standards of righteousness, there is no concept of sin and the need for a redeemer from bondage to sin isn't even seen by many, this is how the law was a tutor leading us to Christ it showed us that we are sinful and needed redemption. The law is like the first stage of rocket, once it had served it's purpose it is jettisoned and the second stage takes over, but you couldn't have gotten where you are without it. While the law is physically gone, the thrust it imparted to our second stage, the momentum of the guiding principles it contained is essential to the success of Christianity. How many Christians have you seen who believe in once saved always saved and feel free to do what every they want? Without what was behind the law, christianity becomes play dough that people twist into whatever fits their life style rather than changing their conduct to live by Christ. Just as the law guided the Jews to Christ as a group, the righteous principles in the law continue to guide individuals to Christ by showing us how sinful we are and that we need a redemption from sin.Wm Scott Anderson

Message # 112 in this topic has nothing to do with the OP.Here we have the leading fundie on this board resort to non sequitors all the while avoiding the content of the OP.The OP clearly sourced what Paul in Galatians said about anyone who places the law or any synonym for that law (Buzsaw's 'requirements') back in front of the only way to always relate to God - the way of faith. Paul, speaking for God said they were "perverts" and that this perversion earns them damnation.In Galatians 4, with Paul using Genesis as his source, says the true church is to throw out the perverts.Buzsaw has no answer but to comfort himself that I and Paul and Dr. Scott are doing the "enemies" bidding.Paul is very clear in Galatians, and so is Jesus in the Gospels, the only enemy is they who void the gospel by their traditions.Fundie traditions have completely voided the only thing that can save anyone. (the gospel/way of faith)Buzsaw's entire presence in this floor wiping called a debate is to preserve his ego at the expense of what Christ's blood paid for.Paul was speaking to the established religious community of his day when he said "Cast out the bondwoman and her son", the eternal word of God always applies and these passages in Galatians and Acts fit like a glove onto the established religious community of our day - the Fundementalists of Fundementalism.

WT, it is clear that you have no intention of debating in good faith with anyone. It's not just me. Unless there's something looking worthwhile, I see you're a waste of my time and Percy's bandwidth.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-18-2004 07:21 PM

WT,
I saw your topic entitled "Genesis 22:17/Not a Promise Given to the Jews" so pretty much figure you don't agree with my interpretation. So no I dont' want to discuss any points with you.BTW, James spoke and not Peter. My bad.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

since the words Fundamental, Fundamentalism and Fundamentalist do not occur in the Bible, we can saw without a doubt that God did not have ANYTHING to say about them one way or another. We can also say that Paulie was moot on the subject as were John, James, Luke, Peter, Matthew, Mark, and every other writer both known and unknown.Unless WILLOWTREE can find at least one example of at least one of the three words, it appears that GOD is fine with them.On the otherhand, there are a few mentions about folk that take the Lord's Name in vain.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

We Biblical fundamentalists contend for those fundamentals and are despised by the enemy for it. WT is at best, an apologetic for the enemy of truth and at worst right in the ranks of the enemies offense. He hates the Biblical fundamentals which teaches that "faith without works (evidence of) is dead" and that the fruit of the Spirit of God makes a person a new person, no matter how you cut it.

---

Above, Buzsaw quote, "faith without works (evidence of) is dead".This quote is from the Book of James, the same James who led the church at Jerusalem, the same James, who in the OP, said you could not be saved unless you were circumcised.Buzsaw has spent this entire debate denying that the Fundementalists embrace a code of conduct to demonstrate their faith and evidence their salvation. NOW Buzsaw betrays his previous disclaimers and instinctively returns to the origin of the voiding of the gospel - James the epistle writer.Both James and Buzsaw are saying what I have said and substantiated all along. They pursue, by works, the evidencing of the fruit of the Spirit. Buzsaw, and the fundies have renamed "works" to be the "fundementals"/requirements stated in the N.T., which Buz and I both agree are actually called the "fruit of the Spirit".James wrote his epistle to rip Paul's "righteousness by faith" alone.
James says he will "show you his faith by his works". These two statements are grossly contradictory and cannot be reconciled, nor were they intended to be reconciled.God allowed the Epistle of James into he Canon as to demonstrate what gospel voiding perversion looks like. This is the only purpose of the Book of James - to have a record from the man who plainly said in Acts 15 that an external conformity to a law was necessary to be saved.The error of Fundementalism is to pursue works/fundementals/fruit of the Spirit BY just actually doing your best to conform.The truth, as revealed by Paul, is that the fruit of the Spirit will miraculously manifest (just like Isaac did via promise) IF we continue the exact same way we started - by gospel faith.Buzsaw says I hate the Biblical fundementals/fruit of the Spirit.Not true.We disagree on how the fruit of the Spirit is to be achieved.I/Paul/Dr.Scott say it comes if you keep on "faithing" which is the gospel.Buzsaw/James, and the Fundies, void the gospel way of faith by pursuing the goal and work of the Spirit by themselves apart from faith alone.Thus far, Buzsaw will only dismiss my arguments as "working for the enemy" which is longtime standard fundie escape hatch.

OH HO HO!! So now WT is fiiiiinally getting around to agreeing with Biblical fundamental..ists that Biblical fundamentals are indeed those basic truths which the NT teaches, which Biblical fundamentalists teach, live and believe and is essentially admitting that he has been all wrong from the gitgo in post one, all the way through these 8 pages, that he's been whistling his hatred in the wind and in fact that the fruit of the Spirit is a Biblical fundamental essentially making him, Willowtree A FUNDAMENTALIST!!!

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz