- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Actor Shia LeBeouf converts to Catholicism
Posted on 8/29/22 at 4:58 pm to Champagne
Posted on 8/29/22 at 4:58 pm to Champagne
Looks like this thread is Anchored!
But I know that Foo and Revelator will be right back in here to tell us all about how Gay Marriage is in the Bible!
And I can't wait for them to explain how Scripture is perfectly clear that Gay Marriage should be celebrated in all of our Christian Churchs!
But I know that Foo and Revelator will be right back in here to tell us all about how Gay Marriage is in the Bible!
And I can't wait for them to explain how Scripture is perfectly clear that Gay Marriage should be celebrated in all of our Christian Churchs!
1
Posted on 8/29/22 at 5:04 pm to Champagne
quote:
Your fellow Protestants in the Presbyterian Church are now conducting same sex marriages. Is that in the Bible? They say it is. What do you say?
It really doesn’t matter what I think about gay marriage or what the Presbyterian church down the road thinks. All that matters is what God thinks about it.
Again, my salivation isn’t incumbent on what my church believes or what the church down the road believes.
It’s based on my personal relationship with Christ.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 5:09 pm to Champagne
quote:
But I know that Foo and Revelator will be right back in here to tell us all about how Gay Marriage is in the Bible!
What gives you the idea that I somehow support gay marriage?
Posted on 8/29/22 at 5:10 pm to hnds2th
quote:
How was Christianity sustained prior to being able to read and write?
In the words of St Paul, "by word of mouth" most likely. Aka, Sacred Tradition.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 5:29 pm to Revelator
What does "saved" mean? If it means announcing to the world, " Guess what ladies and gents, Christ is my new best buddy. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ , my Lord and Savior" Where is the rigor? Where's the understanding? Where is the Fear of the Lord ( if you took catechism , you know exactly what that means) .
In point to the Baptists in Jackson and Montgomery, if you are going allow scripture to create tradition as you are want to do, then the tradition should be uniform throughout . I have family in Birmingham and in New Jersey. When I go to either locale and I go to mass, the message the format, the theology is the same. So yes it does matter about the Lord's Supper and how often it is done. It is important that each mass that the consecration of the Eucharist is performed. It is important that your priest or preacher knows more than you and is the authority....or what's the point? Then its just millions of people with thousands of interpretations of the Gospels and New Testament.
Leave it to myself to interpret? Because I " think" or " believe" the Holy Spirit is partnering with me in my search? That's incredibly dangerous from a theological view.
In point to the Baptists in Jackson and Montgomery, if you are going allow scripture to create tradition as you are want to do, then the tradition should be uniform throughout . I have family in Birmingham and in New Jersey. When I go to either locale and I go to mass, the message the format, the theology is the same. So yes it does matter about the Lord's Supper and how often it is done. It is important that each mass that the consecration of the Eucharist is performed. It is important that your priest or preacher knows more than you and is the authority....or what's the point? Then its just millions of people with thousands of interpretations of the Gospels and New Testament.
Leave it to myself to interpret? Because I " think" or " believe" the Holy Spirit is partnering with me in my search? That's incredibly dangerous from a theological view.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 6:00 pm to KiwiHead
quote:I believe the Bible should be interpreted literally... in the sense that it should be taken exactly how it was written. If a portion was written as poetry, it should be interpreted as poetry. If a portion is written as history, it should be interpreted as history. So on and so forth.
So we should accept a literalist interpretation of scripture ?
Jesus' words about His body and blood are figurative because He often spoke in such terms. I provided another example in John 4 where Jesus did that very thing.
quote:I look at the commentaries of a lot of different folks because God has blessed His Church with a diversity of thought and understanding, and a lot of brilliant insight, though no one is/was perfect except Jesus Christ.
Or a disenchanted seminarian's interpretation or a self taught French preacher humanist lawyer who decides at 21 that he is an authority.
I think Catholics are confused about where my "allegiance" is. Catholics put their implicit trust in the Church, in the Pope (at least when he speaks from the chair), and the interpretation of the Magisterium. You put your trust and allegiance in fallible men, and you expect Protestants to do the same, but in different men, like Luther and Calvin. I don't do that.
I identify with many of their beliefs and convictions (I'm fine with being called a 'Calvinist' only because of the truth of the teachings), but not because of the men, but because in the scriptures that they provide insight into. I don't care if Luther or Calvin were sinners, because I'm a sinner, and Paul counted himself as chief amongst sinners. No one was perfect except Jesus Christ, and drawing attention to the men rather than the Bible is not something I care too much about personally, because I don't have an allegiance to Luther or Calvin, but to Christ. It's exactly what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor. 1:12 when he says, "...each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”
quote:It depends on the denomination. I'm Presbyterian and we have a formal government based on Acts 15 that has checks and balances intended to prevent the denomination from going off the rails theologically. We have elders that rule according to the scriptures over a congregation. We have a regional group of congregational elders that act as a higher court within that presbytery (region). Finally, we have a Synod or General Assembly of representative elders from the entire denomination (all regions/presbyteries) that decide matters at the highest court. It's very structured.
At least in the Catholic Church, they create roadblocks to this type of thinking that says you alone can interpret scripture and that scripture alone explains everything. Where's the formalized rigor? For that matter accountability when things go off the rails....in reality there is none.
quote:You'll always have that problem. The issue isn't competing interpretations but competing authorities. I guarantee you that Councils over the past 2,000 years didn't convince every single person that the decision they came to was the right one, or the interpretation they had was the right one. The difference was that you had to submit to that decision; there wasn't really a choice in the matter. You either submitted or you were kicked out of the church (at best), or executed (at worst).
At least in the Catholic or even Orthodox there are hierarchies which at worst moderate it. Yeah if Rome says it, then it must be....for the time. Otherwise coherence suffers. Reliance on scripture alone isn't going to do it. You'll have competing narratives and interpretation that will assume they are correct. So the Baptists of Jackson believe X but the Baptists of Montgomery not only deny X but assert Y is the only correct interpretation.
quote:I desperately desire peace and unity in Christ's Church. I don't want division and feuds, in spite of my adamant defense of what I believe to be scriptural doctrines. I don't want differences to separate anyone, but I also believe in the purity of the church, as well as the peace of the church. That means I have to seek the truth above all else, even peace and unity. If the whole world rejects the gospel of Jesus Christ and embraces the gospel of social justice, or of universalism, I have to reject that and stand alone for the sake of the truth.
If anything Rome and the Church at least seek to bring a certain amount of sanity to the conversation. The Protestant says that's too limiting....besides I'm a pious man
I recognize what I believe is a minority view, even in Protestantism, but consensus does not determine truth. The best I can do is seek to glorify God through trying to understand the scriptures that He has passed down to us and honor Christ as Lord, by faith, and by practice.
This post was edited on 8/29/22 at 6:45 pm
Posted on 8/29/22 at 6:25 pm to Champagne
quote:I already quoted the Bible; Jesus' own words on the subject. He spoke in parables precisely so that those not appointed to eternal life would not understand and believe, while those who were appointed to eternal life, would.
What's perplexing is why anybody could be confused by the plain words of Jesus Christ Himself.
quote:While I appreciate links to support an argument (even if the support is not good), I hope that isn't a swipe at me for not posting links. I'm almost entirely quoting from scripture itself rather than an outside source, and I'm trying to provide at least something to reference when I mention something of historical significance.
I'm always happy to provide internet links to support my arguments. All that appears from the other side of the argument never seems to be supported by any links.
Perhaps you think it's a shortcut, but I find putting my beliefs and defenses of those beliefs into my own words to be better at explaining what I, personally, believe, as well as reinforce those beliefs by having to explain them.
quote:"Scripture alone" was "invented" by God by having all His people look to His Word as the final authority for faith and life. Going all the way back to creation, we see what happens when people ignore God's word and create other authorities to obey besides God.
Scripture Alone is a recently invented and false doctrine unsupported by the Bible
quote:Likewise, "faith alone" is a doctrine derived from the teachings of the scriptures. It is neither recent, nor false.
Faith Alone is also a recent and false doctrine, unsupported by the Bible.
quote:He certainly did mean it when He said it, but what exactly did He mean? Did He also mean that He was a gate (Matt. 7:13-14)? Is He a door (John 10:7-9)? Is He a shepherd (John 10:11)? Is Jesus a lamb (John 1:36)? Is Jesus bread (John 6:35)? Is Jesus light (John 8:12)? Is Jesus life (John 11:25)? Is Jesus a vine (John 15:1)?
Jesus meant what he said when he declared "This is my Body."
The answer to all of those is "yes", but not literally. Jesus is using symbolic language to explain a true reality. He certainly means what He says, but not always literally.
quote:Please stop parading your ignorance around. I'm embarrassed for you.
Let's talk about what Foo's Presbyterian Church believes in: Gay Marriage.
I'm not a member of the PCUSA. They aren't even a "sister denomination" of NAPARC (North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council). The PCUSA has been liberal for quite some time.
quote:It doesn't. The PCUSA is a great example of a denomination ignoring the Bible for the sake of the world. There is nothing in the Bible that supports gay "marriage". Quite the contrary. Jesus defined it as between a man and a woman (Matt. 19:3-5).
OK, Foo. Show me with all the perspicuity that you can muster where the Bible says that Gay Marriage is OK for your Christian Presbyterian Church.
And again, I don't belong to the PCUSA.
quote:I have a beef with all sorts of people who claim the name of Christ. I'm arguing in a thread about Catholicism right now, but I'd be just as happy to argue about the Christian view of marriage (I've done it in the past).
You spend a lot of time trying to convince Roman Catholics that their Faith is wrong. Seems to me that your beef should be closer to your backyard - with your own fellow Presbyterians.
quote:It appears I'm not yet done here.
Go fight with them.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 6:29 pm to Champagne
quote:There are also people in Africa that can't read. I suppose the missionaries that take the Bible there are out of luck if they believe in sola scriptura, huh?
Here's an article on literacy among the people who heard Jesus preach on Earth.
About 1.5 percent of everybody could read. Now how can "Scripture Alone" be a correct doctrine under those impossible conditions?
LINK
The article mentions a contemporary historical source telling how there was only one guy in the whole town who could read, so, he was the guy who read in the Synagogue, and everybody else in the town heard the Bible from him.
You are showing a pattern of complete and total ignorance, gloating when you are showing yourself to be a fool (in the biblical sense).
Sola scriptura is about authority. Does the one person in the town who can read preach from the Bible as the authority, or take his marching orders strictly from the Church, in spite of what the Bible teaches?
You continue to swing and miss and then jog around the bases like you just hit a home run.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 6:38 pm to hnds2th
quote:Not all, but I'd say the way was especially narrow during those dark ages. I trust that God saved people then as He does now: by His grace. Enough of the gospel made its way through to save God's elect in spite of Rome making it murky.
So you’re saying no one knew about Jesus prior to the 19th c, since they couldn’t read the Bible themselves and the Catholic Church didn’t teach them?
quote:By God's grace. There was enough truth in what was taught to save some, I'm sure, but not those who bought wholesale into everything taught by Rome.
How was Christianity sustained prior to being able to read and write?
quote:See above.
If people couldn’t read and the Bible is the only source of information about God and Jesus????
quote:He didn't. Sin has clouded the understanding of men. Sin corrupts the church. Sin causes division.
Answer the question, rather than making more accusations against Christ’s church. Before you say it isn’t, show me in the Bible where it says Jesus established 10,000 Christian denominations and he wanted them to be split and all the things they believed.
quote:I'm sure you would. The same could be said for Catholics prior to a dogma being created and forced upon the people. I already demonstrated in a previous post that even up until the very decade of the Council of Trent, there was disagreement amongst "good Catholics" about what the canon of scripture was, in terms of that which is canonical vs. that which is ecclesiastical. Disagreement isn't a protestant thing. It's only the authority of Rome that separates us.
Is there a trinity?
Do you need to be baptized?
When should one be baptized?
Is they bread and wine the real presence or a symbol.
Should Eucharist be celebrated daily, weekly or monthly?
Is salvation pre-determined?
Can women be bishops?
Is divorce allowed?
Can same-sex couples marry?
If you polled 20 churches, you would get multiple answers to all of those questions.
quote:I'm sure He didn't want that at all, but the question is what do you value more: peace and unity, or truth?
Show me in the Bible where Jesus says this is what His church would look like.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 6:41 pm to Champagne
quote:It's not in the Bible and they are in sin for allowing such a thing.
Your fellow Protestants in the Presbyterian Church are now conducting same sex marriages. Is that in the Bible? They say it is. What do you say?
quote:Perspicuity doesn't mean that all things are equally clear, only that it's clear enough to know it's main purpose: salvation.
If you disagree what does that say about the perspicuity of Scripture?
Even if everything in the Bible were equally clear and there could be no logical disagreement, there would still be disagreement because of sin. Those who support gay marriage have no basis for supporting it from the Bible. They make the same mistake Rome does by taking their prior beliefs and forcing them into the text wherever they can, if they even try to at all.
They say "God is love", but don't read that "love" is obedience to God's law, which forbids homosexuality along with other sexual immorality. They do what Satan does and twist scripture to suit their own desires rather than try to understand what the scriptures teach within its own context and change their own thinking to conform to it.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 6:55 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
What does "saved" mean?
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
When Nicodemus, a very pious and religious man asked Jesus what he had to do to be saved, what did Jesus tell him?
Did he say he had to be part of a certain church? Did he tell him to be good? Did he tell him to follow tradition? Why didn’t he tell Nicodemus to eat his body? Nope, he told him unless he was born again, he’d never see the kingdom of God.
This post was edited on 8/29/22 at 7:07 pm
Posted on 8/29/22 at 7:34 pm to Revelator
quote:
Nope, he told him unless he was born again, he’d never see the kingdom of God.
And the clear meaning of born again in the Bible is to be Baptized and thus cleansed of Original Sin.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 7:38 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Perspicuity doesn't mean that all things are equally clear, only that it's clear enough to know it's main purpose: salvation.
Perspicuity in the sense in which the Protestants taught it is that the Scriptures are infallible and clear about all things. If Scripture is as clear as you say, how can two different Presbyterians believe that two men can be married and have Gay Sex and one Presbyterian says they are going to Hell and the other says that as long as they have Faith, they are going to Heaven?
That's the opposite of perspicuity. Can you explain that?
Your own Presbyterian Church can't decide whether two men can get married and have anal sex every night and still go to Heaven. One sect says yes, the other sect of your church says no. You have no credibility at all.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 7:39 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Those who support gay marriage have no basis for supporting it from the Bible. They make the same mistake Rome does by taking their prior beliefs and forcing them into the text wherever they can, if they even try to at all.
Don't bring "Rome" into this. "Rome" knows exactly where two men having anal sex with each other are going. Your church sure does not.
There's not a single thing that you and Rev have brought up about Religion that I haven't rebutted with links and other evidence.
I'll be waiting for when you attack the Roman Catholic Church again. I'll be sure to bring up how much your Presbyterian Church loves them some male on male anal sex and thinks that the Bible says that it is just FINE - and very much in line with the perspicuity of Scripture.
That's all for now Foo. That's all for now, Rev. I'll be looking out for your next attacks on the Body of Christ. You two have a lot in common with the Roman soldiers who nailed Jesus Christ on the Cross. Except that they were ordered to attack the Body of Christ. You two do it just to please Satan.
Oh, let me post this link again. I'll probably need to use this again.
LINK
This post was edited on 8/29/22 at 7:55 pm
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:10 pm to Champagne
quote:
And the clear meaning of born again in the Bible is to be Baptized and thus cleansed of Original Sin.
No
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:13 pm to Champagne
quote:
Except that they were ordered to attack the Body of Christ. You two do it just to please Satan.
Satan huh? I’ll shake your dust from my shoes and never bother with you again.
This post was edited on 8/29/22 at 8:16 pm
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:25 pm to Revelator
quote:
Peter himself describes himself as a fellow elder and makes no declaration of some special role or office.
Agreed.
Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not arguing a place of primacy for Peter as a proto-Pope.
He indisputably was a leader and moving force in the young Church.
Jesus challenged Peter as a leader instructing him to feed his sheep. He stepped up and led the appointment of Matthias to replace Judas. Preached the sermon at Pentecost. Used by Jesus to bring baptism and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost to the Gentiles and so forth.
Yet virtually disappears after Act 13 or so. St. Paul vigorously withstood St. Peter over his hypocrisy and fear of the Circumcizers.
As the Scriptures point out, like all the Apostles, Peter was a weak, flawed man Jesus tasked to obediently preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I am arguing that Jesus is building his Church upon that which the gates of Hell will never overcome-that he is the Christ, the son of the living God and everything which that entails.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:40 pm to Champagne
quote:Clear about all things? Did I say that, or are you misrepresenting again? You seem to have done nothing but misrepresent me and the scriptures during this entire discussion, which is odd, considering how frequently Catholics say that Protestants misrepresent them.
Perspicuity in the sense in which the Protestants taught it is that the Scriptures are infallible and clear about all things.
The scriptures are clear on what is necessary for salvation. Studying the scriptures is still necessary.
quote:Yes. The issue isn't with the Bible, but with the sinful inclinations of man and the noetic effects of sin on the minds of human beings, who twist scripture by sin and misunderstand due to forcing their own desires into the Bible rather than conforming their desires to what the Bible actually teaches in itself.
If Scripture is as clear as you say, how can two different Presbyterians believe that two men can be married and have Gay Sex and one Presbyterian says they are going to Hell and the other says that as long as they have Faith, they are going to Heaven?That's the opposite of perspicuity. Can you explain that?
More particularly, the difference between what I believe and what the PCUSA teaches is based on a misrepresentation of God from the scriptures and the thought that the scriptures should be interpreted in light of culture rather than as a fixed point of objectivity. The PCUSA--as a denomination--comes to the Bible with the belief that it is our cultural biases that affect how the Bible is interpreted, and that the Bible never intended to condemn love (and sexual expression) between loving couples. They have abused the scriptures due to their own sin and desire for cultural relevance over God's standard of moral righteousness.
quote:I don't think you understand how denominations work. The PCUSA is entirely unaffiliated with my denomination. "Presbyterian", first and foremost, speaks to the form of church polity (government). You could technically have a Presbyterian denomination formed that only supports believers baptism (Presbyterians have historically be pedobaptists), so long as the government is elder-led and part of presbyteries.
Your own Presbyterian Church can't decide whether two men can get married and have anal sex every night and still go to Heaven. One sect says yes, the other sect of your church says no. You have no credibility at all.
So yeah, when the PCUSA continues its descent into theological liberalism, the denomination I belong to prays for their repentance, as well as the homosexuals they support.
This post was edited on 8/29/22 at 10:16 pm
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:47 pm to Champagne
quote:The confessional for some privacy?
Don't bring "Rome" into this. "Rome" knows exactly where two men having anal sex with each other are going.
Sorry, I couldn't resist
quote:Again, "my" church is NOT the PCUSA. The PCUSA is entirely unaffiliated with my denomination. They aren't even part of a fellowship of churches that we support that are either Reformed or Presbyterian in their theology and polity.
Your church sure does not.
You need to read a little more about the people you condemn.
quote:You haven't rebutted anything. You have provided disagreement based on your tradition. You haven't even taken the time to explain your own position, but have continued to rely on the twisting of scripture by others. I, at least, have provided an explanation in my own words with direct references to the scriptures.
There's not a single thing that you and Rev have brought up about Religion that I haven't rebutted with links and other evidence.
But of course this would highlight the difference between us: I look to the word of God as my authority while you look to men.
quote:If you continue to do that, you'll only be discrediting yourself. I've had multiple posts now that have said that my denomination does not support gay "marriage" and we are not affiliated in any way with the PCUSA. If you continue to say so, you are lying.
I'll be waiting for when you attack the Roman Catholic Church again. I'll be sure to bring up how much your Presbyterian Church loves them some male on male anal sex and thinks that the Bible says that it is just FINE - and very much in line with the perspicuity of Scripture.
quote:Roman Catholicism is not the body of Christ. By rejecting the gospel (justification by Christ's righteousness being imputed to sinners by faith) and replacing it with a man-centered righteousness gained by works, Rome has removed herself from the body of Christ.
That's all for now Foo. That's all for now, Rev. I'll be looking out for your next attacks on the Body of Christ. You two have a lot in common with the Roman soldiers who nailed Jesus Christ on the Cross. Except that they were ordered to attack the Body of Christ. You two do it just to please Satan.
quote:I join you in condemning the PCUSA. You need to stop saying that I'm associated with them or agree with them. I'm not and I don't.
Oh, let me post this link again. I'll probably need to use this again.
This post was edited on 8/29/22 at 8:50 pm
Posted on 8/29/22 at 10:22 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Roman Catholicism is not the body of Christ. By rejecting the gospel (justification by Christ's righteousness being imputed to sinners by faith) and replacing it with a man-centered righteousness gained by works, Rome has removed herself from the body of Christ.
It’s disheartening to read some of these posts.
You’re certain that Roman Catholics are not members of the body of Christ? Are not good works to flow from a robust faith in Jesus’s finished work upon the cross? St. James tells us clearly faith absent works is dead. Can’t this be the works our Roman Catholic brothers are writing about? Not salvation by works but works done in service to Christ engendered by faith in Jesus’s blood? I very much hope this is the case.
There’s plenty to argue about between denominational differences but both you and Roman Catholics baptize infants. Both celebrate the Eucharist as the high point of your Sunday worship. We go so far as to allow padeocommunion.
I think you tread heavily at times, particularly here, excommunicating on your authority untold millions who well may join you at the Lamb’s wedding feast.
That being said, I don’t believe you or Revelator deserved to be lumped with the odious minions of Satan trying to drag faithful Catholics to hell. Your adversary was misguided and unjust in saying that.
Behold The Lamb/He Is The King
Page 21 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News