re: Christians who somehow thought it wasn’t Christianlike to vote for Trump

quote:

---

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.

---

Henry the 8th wasn't exactly what anyone would consider a "reformer" . He wanted to break way from the RCC because of his sexual sins, but he wasn't concerned with theological purity. He actually persecuted both RCs and Protestants.

To your point, there is a lot of doctrine to consider. I don't know if you've ever looked at your own catechism (kidding, I know you have), but it speaks to a lot of theology and practice. What the Reformers did was reclaim a few primary principles, referred to as the solas of the Reformation. This was a reclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Reformation didn't seek to cure all possible errors, nor did any Reformer claim to have perfect theology at the end of the day, but they were going back to the fountain of truth in the Scriptures to get at the heart of the gospel.

quote:

---

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."

---

That's quite the statement.

Luther didn't condemn man's reason, broadly, but used it, himself, and thought it was good and helpful in civil and home life. He condemned reason within the context of theology, because man's natural and fallen reason cannot ascertain spiritual truths unguided by the Spirit, and he was railing against those who used reason (the Humanists were big on this) as equal to or greater than Scripture in understanding theological truths. It does sound more scandalous to make Luther seem like he's just outright against all reason, though.

quote:

---

It's fine for you have have your opinions, even though they are not correct or accurate.

---

If you would like to refute my opinions with Scripture, please do so. The problem I keep seeing is that you say I'm wrong, and then support your conclusion with doctrines of the RCC or selective quotes from the ECFs. Rarely do I see you refute me with the Bible, itself.

quote:

---

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.

---

What other "works" are there, but those things which are commanded of us to do?

But you're wrong about Paul's focus. Even beginning in chapter 1, Paul calls out sins that even the Gentiles are performing. Paul says in chapter 3 that the Gentiles are not exempt from sin, and he says that all sin and no one is righteous.

The simplest way to prove this true is to see what Paul says in chapter 4: Paul speaks of Abraham and the law, long before Moses was even born. The Mosaic law wasn't even in mind there. Whatever "works" or whatever "law" Paul is speaking of is not relegated to the law of Moses. In fact, the 10 commandments is a summary of the moral law, that has always and will always be binding because it reflects the holy character of God. What Paul is saying that no one is justified by the works of the law--any law--because all have sinned. All are guilty before God and no one can "work" their way to a good standing in God's sight. That's why Jesus needed to justify sinners by faith.

quote:

---

You’re not a follower of Jesus Christ. You’re a heretic following anti-Christ teachings.

---

I beg to differ, but Christ knows my heart. He knows I love Him and trust in Him alone for my salvation from sin. He knows that I try to be faithful in my obedience to Him, repenting for my sins and pursuing new obedience.

My faith is Christ-centered. No matter what you say, you cannot change that.

quote:

---

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.

---

They haven't. He has been building His Church for the past 2,000 years, and the truth has never been extinguished; there has always been a remnant.

I hope you recall that Israel had some issues like that, too. They were promised to be a mighty nation and to have God's favor, but in their sin and error, God judged them, yet there was always a remnant who remained faithful, all the way until Christ's coming. The same is true until He returns again.

quote:

---

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.

---

Did you know that there was about a 50 year span of time where the Arian heresy was a dominant force in Christianity, being embraced even by the Pope for a time? Christ allowed a heresy to reign for a couple of generations.

There was about 700 years of debate about the filioque in the Nicene Creed, so whether you are RCC or EOC, you have to admit that Christ allowed that debate to reign with impurity for many centuries.

quote:

---

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”.

---

Who is the "one man" you're referring to with me? You know that the Reformed tradition sprung out of the works of many men, faithfully pouring over the Scriptures? And ultimately, it is the Bible that I am beholden to, not one man, like in the cults you mentioned.

If you want to say I have a cult-like obedience to the Scriptures, then I'd gladly accept that.

quote:

---

Brother, I pray you repent and turn from your prideful heresies.

---

If you knew anything about Calvinism, you'd know that it teaches the opposite of pride. In fact, at its core, it teaches that man is incapable in himself to save himself, and must humble himself and reach out to and cry out to Christ alone to save him. That's the opposite of pride, and I can assure you I don't think I'm anything special.

quote:

---

This is every p9st you've ever made 9n this board. To dispute that would take an SFP lack of self-awareness.

---

It actually isn't. I've been very concerned with the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the law. The law has its place (to show us our sin and need for Christ, to curb lawless in society, and to be a guide for the Christian), but my focus has not been the law.

quote:

---

So the Church had the Bible for about 1000 years before Calvin, taught things during that entire time counter to Calvin's teachings, and it wasn't until Calvin came along that we finally realized we got everything wrong?

---

When you teach that the Church cannot err, that tends to silence critics, especially when there isn’t an alternative to run to and disagreement may lead to your death as a heretic.

quote:

---

When did God create the Bible?

---

Over hundreds of years, finalizing the last book (Revelation) by the end of the 1st century AD.

quote:

---

When you teach that the Church cannot err, that tends to silence critics, especially when there isn’t an alternative to run to and disagreement may lead to your death as a heretic.

---

This is historically inaccurate. If that were the case, the early Church would have been Arian judaizing iconoclasts. All 3 of those positions were held by the majority at some point, yet the Church determined them all to be heresy. The minority side won out in each case.

quote:

---

Over hundreds of years, finalizing the last book (Revelation) by the end of the 1st century AD.

---

So you admit the early Church didn't have the Scripture here, but earlier you said that that doesn't matter because it's not about having the Scripture in its entirety, but rather authority. What authority did the early Church appeal to prior to the Scriptures being finalized?

quote:

---

So yes, the Apostles had authority to teach, and yet what they taught that needed to be followed by the whole Church were recorded for posterity in the Holy Scriptures.

---

I'm not arguing about whether or not the Apostles had authority to teach. I think everyone here agrees on their authority.

But what about after the apostles? You affirmed that the Church got it wrong for 1000 years prior to Calvin. Did their disciples not have the same authority?

quote:

---

Not the same revelational authority. The authority of the Church that has been passed down from the Apostles is ministerial, not legislative. The Church is to declare the truth of the Scriptures, not create conscience-binding doctrines that are not taught in the Scriptures, either directly or by good and necessary consequence.

---

But there wasn't a finalized canon for centuries after the Apostles. The Apostles' disciples had to appeal to some kind of authority since scripture was fragmented and no one agreed on a canon. How did they know what the New Testament was before it was finalized?

quote:

---

The Apostle Paul could dictate God's word to us as he was led by the Spirit, but the Apostles have ceased, and their special office has ceased with the. Their office as elders of the Church (as Peter called himself) continues, but it is different from the office of Apostle.

---

So they were just poor keepers until Calvin?

quote:

---

But there wasn't a finalized canon for centuries after the Apostles. The Apostles' disciples had to appeal to some kind of authority since scripture was fragmented and no one agreed on a canon. How did they know what the New Testament was before it was finalized?

---

The Scriptures that were known were copied and transmitted throughout the churches pretty quickly. Peter was aware of Paul's writings and called them "Scripture".

That which was Scripture was authoritative as such.

Again, it's about ultimate authority. The disciples of the Apostles taught as they did, and would have been (or should have been) held up to the same Scriptures that were available to the listeners. Paul was initially held accountable to just the Old Testament by the Bereans, after all.

quote:

---

So they were just poor keepers until Calvin?

---

You and others keep calling out Calvin. You do realize that the Reformation included many different people, right?

And yes and no; there better and worse shepherds (keepers) throughout history.

quote:

---

the Apostles have ceased, and their special office has ceased

---

The Gospel of Foo DECLARES for all time that once the last Apostle had died, no other human beings carried forth their "special office" despite the fact that Christ Himself told Peter: "Feel my sheep."

I don't see anywhere in the Bible that the Apostles' special mission was over once the last Apostle died. In fact, the NT presents passages and evidence to indicate that Christ appointed Church leaders who would carry the special mission forward to the End of Time.