- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
0
Posted on 9/8/25 at 1:02 pm to DeltaDoc
Agreed.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 1:03 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
The sooner people realize this is about God and faith and reliance upon Him alone, the sooner people can stop lying to themselves about their own righteousness and start relying upon Jesus instead.
^^^^^
Posted on 9/8/25 at 1:18 pm to BarnHater
quote:
There’s never been a more Christian president than Trump. He puts God above all else.
If God is named Donald Trump, then I guess you're right.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 2:14 pm to TheDeerHunter
quote:I do.
Dude, do you even Gospel bro?
quote:The Church received God's word, but God created His canon. The canon was complete once the last word of the last document was completed.
When you answer my question WHOM declared and collated the Gospels and Epistles as Holy Scriptures, we can move further in a real debate.
Like I said, this is about authority. Whatever is God's word is the highest authority.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 2:19 pm to TheDeerHunter
quote:What is your point for asking this question? It doesn't really matter who collated God's word, as God's word was written and disseminated throughout the Church for decades, at least, until collation started happening, primarily in response to false writings being attributed as Scripture.
Again, who - like as in what men made in GOD’s image - actually collated the Holy Scriptures you state is “the only infallible rule for the faith and life of the Church”?
Whoever, or what Council, made decisions about accepting this book over that book, that was merely a reception of God's word, not an authority over God's word.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 2:24 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
not an authority over God's word.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 2:34 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It doesn't really matter who collated God's word, as God's word was written and disseminated throughout the Church for decades, at least, until collation started happening, primarily in response to false writings being attributed as Scripture
Okay dude, do you really believe this tripe? Then who gets to say what is and what isn’t “false writings”?
You’re being disingenuous…but you know in your soul you are…but you go full HERETIC with this:
quote:
Whoever, or what Council, made decisions about accepting this book over that book, that was merely a reception of God's word, not an authority over God's word
Using this illogical position means that every man gets to determine himself as the sole arbiter of TRUTH.
Lord have mercy on us. You truly need to stop pontificating on YOUR interpretations of the Holy Scriptures (at least that which you claim to be Scripture).
Anyone you lead astray unto their own way is heaped on your head and you really need to stop spreading Calvinist heresies on here.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 3:05 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Whoever, or what Council, made decisions about accepting this book over that book, that was merely a reception of God's word, not an authority over God's word.
I'm genuinely confused. If this is the case, could there be other books that we haven't received yet? Like Paul's 3rd letter to the Corinthians, for example?
Posted on 9/8/25 at 3:15 pm to Padme
There are two types of Christians.. One Christian will help to a point and the rest is up to you... Then there is the "Look at Me" Christian.. That is the one who put themselves in the poor house and expect you to do the same or you are not a Christian...
Posted on 9/8/25 at 3:21 pm to TheDeerHunter
quote:The Church can have its say, of course, but that doesn't mean a declaration from the Church is definitive over the Scriptures. It's merely a stated recognition of what it believes the Scriptures to be. There are good reasons for that recognition and reception, however we can never think that the reception is due to an authority of the Church that is equal to or higher than God's word, itself.
Okay dude, do you really believe this tripe? Then who gets to say what is and what isn’t “false writings”?
Take the difference between the RCC and the Greek Orthodox church. I'm sure you do not agree that the RCC's "infallible" declaration of what the canon is is correct.
quote:Of course you think I'm a heretic for this. But why? Because I believe that God's word reigns supreme over all other authorities? That's essentially what you're telling me. I'm OK with be declared a heretic by you for siding with God's word as the final authority. At the end of the day, I have to obey God rather than men.
You’re being disingenuous…but you know in your soul you are…but you go full HERETIC with this:
quote:Not at all. God's word is the sole arbiter of truth. It's up to each Christian to have their consciences bound by the word of God alone, and to be humble enough to be corrected by continued study of it. We all should go to the Church to help us understand it, but the Church is a guide, not a legislator. She cannot bind our consciences beyond the word of God.
Using this illogical position means that every man gets to determine himself as the sole arbiter of TRUTH.
That doesn't mean everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe about the Bible. God doesn't have an infinite number of right interpretations available to us to pick and choose from, but we are supposed to study God's word to understand what He's given us and to conform our thinking and our actions to it. That means we're always to be open to correction by the word of God.
quote:If you have concerns about my interpretations, you should seek to correct me according to Scripture. I don't have a supposedly infallible church or Pope to fall back on that has me default to that position over and against yours. I'm guided by the word of God, and if your interpretation is correct, you should be able to support it from the Scriptures.
Lord have mercy on us. You truly need to stop pontificating on YOUR interpretations of the Holy Scriptures (at least that which you claim to be Scripture).
quote:I write according to what is in God's word. If you disagree with my "Calvinistic" interpretations, you should seek to rebut them with your own from Scripture.
Anyone you lead astray unto their own way is heaped on your head and you really need to stop spreading Calvinist heresies on here.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 3:23 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It says nothing of the sort
Wrong.
quote:
What my response says is that I already addressed your concerns in other posts that you must not have read. Keep reading.
I’m not reading pages of your nonsense addressed to others.
Oh and you hate the real gods of Egypt and Babylon. The ones Yahweh is jealous of and claims he will judge. You believe in them because the Bible says they are real. And you hate them. Stop the hate.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 3:23 pm to Knartfocker
quote:I don't think so. I believe that God is the one who set the canon and He is the one who preserved it for the Church. That means, even if there were a 3rd Corinthians, God didn't preserve it for the Church, and therefore He didn't intend it to be part of the canon.
I'm genuinely confused. If this is the case, could there be other books that we haven't received yet? Like Paul's 3rd letter to the Corinthians, for example?
Jesus said and taught a lot of things that weren't preserved for us. The lack of preservation didn't take away from the authority of Jesus' words, but it does mean God didn't intend them to be preserved for the whole of the Church for the past 2,000 years.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 3:25 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Did you give up using your alter to lie to people about what you claimed was true, now that this account is reinstated?
Squirrelmeister
Posted on 9/8/25 at 3:35 pm to FooManChoo
Dude, you are DELUSIONAL.
You are your own god and make up whatever it is you want to believe.
Total nonsense. You’re just making up word salads that are as defensible as dung castles.
You blow off the teachings of the Apostles and the Church Fathers as if they were fables and latch onto nebulous heretical tripe.
Your mashed potato beliefs with feminine logical fallacies are part and parcel why so many men are turning away from the heresies of western liberalism and returning to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Holy Orthodoxy.
You are your own god and make up whatever it is you want to believe.
Total nonsense. You’re just making up word salads that are as defensible as dung castles.
You blow off the teachings of the Apostles and the Church Fathers as if they were fables and latch onto nebulous heretical tripe.
Your mashed potato beliefs with feminine logical fallacies are part and parcel why so many men are turning away from the heresies of western liberalism and returning to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Holy Orthodoxy.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 3:52 pm to FooManChoo
Foo, I think there is more than one troll in this thread if you get my drift. Someone with a fairly new membership and low post count certainly has a very strong, albeit wrong, opinion of you.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 4:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
FooManChoo
Pathetic liar, and hater of Chemosh, the abomination of Moab who defeated Yahweh.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 4:15 pm to TheDeerHunter
quote:I don't think so. My beliefs are in alignment with Scripture and many throughout Church history.
Dude, you are DELUSIONAL.
quote:That's not what I'm doing at all. I have good, scriptural reasons for what I believe. I can't think of a single belief that I have that is wholly unique to Church history, and everything I've stated and defended has scriptural support, as I said. You can disagree with me, of course, but I certainly don't think I am my own god (I'm not--I'm a sinner relying entirely on the grace of the one, true, and living God), nor that I'm "mak[ing] up" anything in my own mind.
You are your own god and make up whatever it is you want to believe.
quote:On the scriptural arguments I'm making, I'm supporting them with scripture. They are certainly defensible, and I have been defending them.
Total nonsense. You’re just making up word salads that are as defensible as dung castles.
quote:Not exactly. There is no canon of apostolic teaching. The Church Fathers had disagreement on a lot of things, so the claims by the EOC and RCC about ECF unanimity is way off base. However, that doesn't mean I reject or dismiss them. I've actually done quite a lot of studying of the ECFs over the last decade and have come to the conclusion that they were messy and just trying to further clarify the doctrines of the Church in times of persecution and heresy.
You blow off the teachings of the Apostles and the Church Fathers as if they were fables and latch onto nebulous heretical tripe.
quote:Can you provide an example of a "logical fallacy" (with the fallacy name, if you can) for me? I'm curious what you are considering a logical fallacy. You can disagree with a conclusion, but that doesn't make it illogical.
Your mashed potato beliefs with feminine logical fallacies are part and parcel why so many men are turning away from the heresies of western liberalism and returning to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Holy Orthodoxy.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 4:20 pm to Canon951
quote:He very well could be a troll. I'm not sure just yet, but he's certainly vehement about the EOC being the one, true Church. As a Protestant, I believe there is one tree (one true Church) with many branches, some more pure and some less pure, but all still part of the same tree. The RCC and EOC are quite exclusive by comparison.
Foo, I think there is more than one troll in this thread if you get my drift. Someone with a fairly new membership and low post count certainly has a very strong, albeit wrong, opinion of you
I'm curious why there doesn't seem to be as much open division between the EOC and RCC supporters these days, given that they've excommunicated each other and both claim to be the exclusive Church of Jesus Christ. Maybe the division is there and I haven't seen it. I've just seen a lot of Protestants arguing with Catholics and Orthodox.
Posted on 9/8/25 at 5:25 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
many throughout Church history.
There have been many heretics throughout Church history - hence the reason Ecumenical Councils were convened - so it would be interesting to hear what Church Fathers you believe agreed with your view of Sola Scriptura.
quote:
I can't think of a single belief that I have that is wholly unique to Church history
Do you believe the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ and not symbolism?
quote:
There is no canon of apostolic teaching. The Church Fathers had disagreement on a lot of things, so the claims by the EOC and RCC about ECF unanimity is way off base
Again…you throw in the RCC - which did not exist until their bishop broke in schism from the four bishops in the East. I will assume your ignorance re: existent canons of the Church is by choice as they’re easy to locate with Google:
HOLY CANONS OF THE APOSTOLIC ORTHODOX CHURCH
quote:
Can you provide an example of a "logical fallacy" (with the fallacy name, if you can) for me? I'm curious what you are considering a logical fallacy. You can disagree with a conclusion, but that doesn't make it illogical.
SOLA SCRIPTURA is a patent innovation of heretics and is a logical fallacy in that its claims of sole authority, despite 1500 years of Church history and Tradition which never taught this,
Page 10 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News