- 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
re: Christians who somehow thought it wasn’t Christianlike to vote for Trump
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:17 am to Champagne
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:17 am to Champagne
quote:If you could clearly demonstrate how I am wrong or in error, I would welcome reformation of my own beliefs, but only as they accord to the Scriptures. The examples you provided don't qualify.
The reason why I don't engage Foo in lengthy arguments about Religion is because there is no point to it. Foo has a set of talking points that state various "facts" and "observations", neither of which are true, and then he will argue from a standpoint that his "fact" is an established truth, even if you can clearly demonstrate that what he states is either proven wrong or proven to be uncertain.
quote:What you are asking me to do is to say that the Bible is wrong. I'm not sure how you could fault a Christian for adhering to the word of God even against the philosophies and understandings of men, based on secular presuppositions.
Foo insists that the Universe and the Earth are about 6,000 years old. He ignores all scientific evidence to the contrary. Foo doesn't even acknowledge that the Book of Genesis could be wrong about this and science might be right. How do you argue with a mind like that? You can't.
What else would you like me to deny about the Bible based on scientific conclusions? Should I deny the flood? Should I deny the exodus? Should I deny the resurrection of Christ because "that sort of things just doesn't happen"?
quote:I should point out in your quotation, the key phrase is "without dive grace".
Second example: Foo has stated probably dozens of times here on Political Talk that the Church Council of Trent is where the Catholic Church established a non-biblical "Works-based" Salvation plan. Foo uses this "fact" to bolster his argument that the Reformers were right to find the REAL "truth" that Faith Alone does it.
Problem is that the Council of Trent explicitly condemned a Works-based doctrine for Salvation. Here's the proof. This is from the Council of Trent:
"Specifically, Canon 1 of the Decree on Justification states:
"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."
Here are the statements I contend condemn the gospel:
Canon 9:
"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."
Canon 24:
"If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema."
Canon 32:
"If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase in glory, let him be anathema."
quote:I'm here to provide a Christian worldview and gospel call to this board. Are you so offended by that that you must continue to seek to silence me?
Foo, you are here on PT to argue Religion. Political Talk is not the place for that.
quote:We've been over this before. My denomination is irrelevant to whether or not what I say is true. I'm very closely aligned to my NAPARC brothers, and the total membership of the association is about 600,000.
Your congregation has a GRAND TOTAL in the USA of about 10,000 congregants, which means that your church is an incredibly small minority Protestant sect. This fact should be taken into account when anybody chooses to argue with you.
If you think pure numbers alone mean we should take a belief seriously, then you are probably considering Islam, right?
0
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:21 am to KiwiHead
quote:PINO? Presbyterian or Protestant? Not sure what you're referring to.
Would you say that he is a PINO?
I don't know his heart, but his fruits demonstrate either such an extremely weak faith that it can hardly be thought he has it, or no faith at all. It's certainly not obvious that he's a true believer based on his words and actions.
quote:That's all I'm doing. I've said many times that I'm not saying that he isn't saved, because only God knows that. However, I agree that we can only judge actions, and he doesn't seem to have the fruit of a Christian tree.
I always try to stay away from judging another person's intensity when it comes to faith. I can judge the actions.
quote:I'd be surprised if he knew of the Gospel of Thomas, but I'm concerned he isn't familiar with much of anything in the canon of Scripture.
I'll wager that if you asked him to read from the Gospel of Thomas, he might actually open his Bible, but then again he might be a closet theologian and tell you he's not open to the Gnostics and does not carry it around.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:23 am to Knartfocker
quote:Or perhaps their errors occurred so long ago that it seems like it was there from the beginning.
The EO and RCC were around 1500 years before your reformers, Foo. If they don't have or never had your views, maybe it's your views that are wrong.
quote:Chapter 15
What chapter in Genesis does Paul cite in Romans 4 where he says that Abraham was declared righteous by God?
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:26 am to TheDeerHunter
quote:I try to be honest with everything I say.
At least you’re being honest now stating clearly your belief that the Orthodox Church is a “false church”.
quote:That's not true. I'm clinging onto the true gospel of Jesus Christ, as found in the Scriptures, and as professed by the Protestant, Reformed, and Calvinistic confessions like the Westminster Confession of Faith.
As I have stated over and over as well, you are clinging onto a false gospel of Protestant, Reformed, Calvinism - notice how none of that says Jesus Christ.
You are the one taking labels like "Calvinist" and making it seem like I worship Calvin. Calvinism is about Scriptural doctrines, not a man.
quote:Or, the Reformation drew from the Scriptures to reset the clock 1500 years, going back to the source of the faith rather than centuries of church teaching that allowed error to creep in over time.
As such, either Orthodoxy represents the “ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC CHURCH” as put forth in the Nicene Creed by the Church Fathers over 1,700 years ago
OR
innovations of a French lawyer from 450 years ago are correct and the Orthodox Church is wrong.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:27 am to Padme
Faith is one thing and politics is quite another. True even if you disagree.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:28 am to FooManChoo
It's hard to do one of those monikers like PINO when discussing Presbyterians
I personally see Trump more as a reflection than the object generating the reflection. He's not necessarily generating the motive. He's the result.
I personally see Trump more as a reflection than the object generating the reflection. He's not necessarily generating the motive. He's the result.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:33 am to TheDeerHunter
quote:
He was raised Presbyterian like Foomanchoo
FOO MAN BLEW!
i was raised presbyterian then went to church of christ then my wife talked some sense into me and converted me to catholicism. i had personal one on one catechism class with our priest who i grilled since i had been brainwashed/indoctrinated by evangelicals. what a moment seeing the lies i had been told for years!
arguing with foo CUCK chew is a waste of time. not sure why he even posts here. he should be on another board. does he even post on SEC rant?
dude is a hack and has been exposed here by me and others.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:37 am to Padme
MAGA-“Release the Epstein files!!”
*GOP House committee releases birthday card from Trump to Epstein which was in the files*
MAGA-“THIS IS FAKE!!”
*GOP House committee releases birthday card from Trump to Epstein which was in the files*
MAGA-“THIS IS FAKE!!”
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:40 am to Fat Bastard
quote:
arguing with foo CUCK chew is a waste of time. not sure why he even posts here. he should be on another board. does he even post on SEC rant?
dude is a hack and has been exposed here by me and others
He's a real life Pharisee. An utterly ammoral piece of shite. But it's always fun to make him defend the divine child rape in the Old Testament.
This post was edited on 9/10/25 at 9:49 am
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:47 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Or, the Reformation drew from the Scriptures to reset the clock 1500 years, going back to the source of the faith rather than centuries of church teaching that allowed error to creep in over time.
Specious argument.
If this were so, then how could the first four major Protestant/Reformers all have different theologies?
Henry 8th founded Church of England. Theology different from -
Martin Luther founded Lutheran church. Theology different from -
Zwingli - debated Luther on theology because these two Protestant/Reformers differed starkly on theology - both Zwingli and Luther disagreed with the theology of
Calvin - founded the theological basis of Presbyterian Church.
In sum, ALL FOUR major Reformers had different theology, which runs counter to the conclusion that these guys were turning the clock back to Early Church and restoring Christ's True Vision.
It just doesn't add up, Foo, when we analyze all of the facts and apply some logic. HOWEVER, you have the ultimate "Out" because Luther himself proclaims that "REASON IS THE ENEMY OF FAITH", and so you can say to us "Stop using your Reason and have Faith in the Gospel of Foo."
It's fine for you have have your opinions, even though they are not correct or accurate.
PS In Romans 3 and 4, Paul's conversation about Faith and Works: Key here is to remember that when Paul was talking about "Works" he was talking about the Works of the Mosaic Law. You have misinterpreted these Bible passages. Paul is saying that Works of the Law of Moses no longer Save a Soul under the New Covenant.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:49 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Or perhaps their errors occurred so long ago that it seems like it was there from the beginning.
If that's your position, then you have to admit Jesus and the Apostles failed and that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church (something Jesus said would never happen).
This also doesn't help your sola scriptura argument because if the church was in error since the beginning, then the Bible was put together by a bunch of heretics.
quote:
Chapter 15
Correct. But Abraham first had faith in chapter 12. So there were 3 whole chapters of Abraham living in "faithful obedience" before God declared him righteous.
Unless Paul made a mistake?
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:54 am to shinerfan
What's your definition of a Pharisee?
Posted on 9/10/25 at 9:54 am to Knartfocker
quote:
If that's your position, then you have to admit Jesus and the Apostles failed and that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church (something Jesus said would never happen).
This also doesn't help your sola scriptura argument because if the church was in error since the beginning, then the Bible was put together by a bunch of heretics.
Good points.
And Foo does argue that error crept into the Church as soon as the Second Century A.D., which seems illogical. Why would Christ found His Church when He knew that it was predestined to fall into Grave Error in less then 150 years?
It doesn't make sense for this to be the case.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 10:06 am to FooManChoo
quote:
That's not true. I'm clinging onto the true gospel of Jesus Christ, as found in the Scriptures, and as professed by the Protestant, Reformed, and Calvinistic confessions like the Westminster Confession of Faith.
You’re not a follower of Jesus Christ. You’re a heretic following anti-Christ teachings.
quote:
Or, the Reformation drew from the Scriptures to reset the clock 1500 years, going back to the source of the faith rather than centuries of church teaching that allowed error to creep in over time.
Good to know that you think Jesus Christ is a liar and not faithful, as He said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church.
Using your twisted, heretical thinking, the Holy Spirit allowed over a THOUSAND years to go by with false teachings and man just had to feel around blind hoping they figured it all out and then Christ chose John Calvin to make it all right.
No different than any other cult…John Smith and Mormons, Sun Myung Moon and the Moonies, Jim Jones and the People’s Temple, Arius and his followers.
Always ONE MAN has the special knowledge that shows how the Church that Jesus Christ founded is “wrong” or in “error”.
Brother, I pray you repent and turn from your prideful heresies.
This post was edited on 9/10/25 at 10:07 am
Posted on 9/10/25 at 10:41 am to Champagne
Is he claiming that the Grave Error begins with Iraneus of Lyon who was wrong in quashing heresies of guys Valentinus?
Luther and Calvin....Calvin in particular had egos the size of whole countries to think that they should be any credible authority on scripture from an historical sense and defining what should be Christian in terms of theology or dogma.
Overall, I have no use for Calvin from a theological standpoint and little more for Luther or Zwingli.
Luther and Calvin....Calvin in particular had egos the size of whole countries to think that they should be any credible authority on scripture from an historical sense and defining what should be Christian in terms of theology or dogma.
Overall, I have no use for Calvin from a theological standpoint and little more for Luther or Zwingli.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 1:58 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
What's your definition of a Pharisee?
Someone who constantly calls attention to himself with vain displays of piety. Vanity is Foo's one and only personality trait. He is a loathsome toad.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 2:19 pm to KiwiHead
I've followed the Gospel of Foo for years. According to his analytical approach and theological standpoint, he declares that grave theological error had already crept into the Church by the time that St. Iraneaus wrote and taught. So, yes, according the Gospel of Foo, by the year 180 A.D., error had already corrupted the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
And Foo has no ideological option to say otherwise, because by the year 180A.D. we know that the Early Church had already established the Doctrines on The Eucharist and the EOC/RCC doctrine on Baptism. So Foo either calls this "error" or he renounces his membership in his own church congregation.
Once one understands this about Foo, one must conclude that there is no point in arguing with him - YOU may be seeking a more complete Truth, but Foo can never seek anything beyond entrenching himself within the confines of his own personal theology.
I am not the "Manager of Theological Correctness" and I could possibly be wrong and Foo could possibly be right, but, as I see things through the lens of facts, logic and reason, Foo's argument are on the weaker side.
And Foo has no ideological option to say otherwise, because by the year 180A.D. we know that the Early Church had already established the Doctrines on The Eucharist and the EOC/RCC doctrine on Baptism. So Foo either calls this "error" or he renounces his membership in his own church congregation.
Once one understands this about Foo, one must conclude that there is no point in arguing with him - YOU may be seeking a more complete Truth, but Foo can never seek anything beyond entrenching himself within the confines of his own personal theology.
I am not the "Manager of Theological Correctness" and I could possibly be wrong and Foo could possibly be right, but, as I see things through the lens of facts, logic and reason, Foo's argument are on the weaker side.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 2:22 pm to TheDeerHunter
quote:
the Holy Spirit allowed over a THOUSAND years to go by with false teachings
It's really closer to 1,500 years, which is the absolutely astounding total of Fifteen Centuries, before the Holy Sprit graced Humankind with the Wisdom and Gospel of Calvin and the Westminster Confession.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 2:39 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
It's hard to do one of those monikers like PINO when discussing Presbyterians
yeah, that's tough. If you're referring to him being a Presbyterian in name only, it sounds like he's not even that any more. I believe the latest update is that he's moved from the PCUSA to holding to a non-denominational belief (I'm not aware of him being a member of a non-denom church).
Presbyterian, while closely associated with the Scottish Calvinists from the 1600s, really just describes the form of church government, being elder-led, with a system of church courts that represent more of the church as they go up and out.
That technicality aside, I don't think Trump's comments have ever reflected "Presbyterian" thinking, either in terms of the courts, but also in traditional "Presbyterian" theology. He was a member of the PCUSA, which is the most liberal American (and maybe global) Presbyterian denomination, by far. I'm not sad about him leaving that denomination, as that would be my recommendation for everyone affiliated with it right now.
quote:I tend to agree. His lack of teaching hasn't helped him. I don't know what his upbringing is, as he may have gone to church a few times in his life for all I know. That happens all the time.
I personally see Trump more as a reflection than the object generating the reflection. He's not necessarily generating the motive. He's the result.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 2:41 pm to Fat Bastard
quote:You can disagree with my conclusions all you like, but you really need to consider your own sin in this, as you are not upholding the 9th commandment against me here.
FOO MAN BLEW!
foo CUCK
dude is a hack
I'd suggest sticking to the arguments rather than making personal attacks against me.
Page 17 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News