- 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 10:31 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 9/10/25 at 10:31 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
the "word of God" also refers to God's revelation.
Indeed so. God's revelation to humankind unfolded over many thousands of years and it includes what He directly handed down to His Church. And as we know from the Jewish Faith, the EOC and the RCC, God handed down to us some doctrines of our Faith that are not explicitly written down, because they are carried forward by Christ's Church, as He intended when he told Peter "Feed my sheep."
This post was edited on 9/10/25 at 10:38 pm
1
Posted on 9/10/25 at 10:34 pm to TheDeerHunter
quote:That’s the aim.
You’re consistent on this, so for that, I give you credit.
quote:I would hope that each Christian seeks to interpret Scripture according to what God is revealing rather than how they see fit.
This leads to what we Orthodox call “every man a pope” just interpreting Scriptures as you see fit.
The problem with the “Pope” comment is that the Pope can’t be overruled due to being infallible. The Protestant must be open to correction by further study of the word and enlightenment by the Spirit.
It is the ability to be corrected that makes the difference here.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 10:37 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The Protestant must be open to correction by further study of the word and enlightenment by the Spirit.
No friend, this phrase is directed at Protestants who have continued to schism into thousands of denominations, confessions and “churches”.
That alone shows the insanity of Protestants who know nothing of
the early Church or ignore it at their own condemnation.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 10:39 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The problem with the “Pope” comment is that the Pope can’t be overruled due to being infallible.
The last time any Pope declared a point of theology that is infallible dates back to the year 1950. That's a long time ago.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 10:51 pm to Knartfocker
quote:I respectfully disagree. Christ has a real body and He is uncreated. I affirm that He has eternally existed with the Father and the Spirit, and that He became incarnate, taking on a human nature without mixture.
Foo, your belief is almost textbook Arianism.
quote:You are equivocating. I never said that Jesus is the Bible, or that the Bible is Jesus. I said that both the Bible--God's inscripturated revelation--and Jesus are called by Scripture the "word". While I believe the Bible had a beginning (it had to be written down in time and space), Jesus Christ had no beginning as God. His humanity had a beginning, but His divine nature did not. I think you are confusing my statements. I hope this has clarified my position for you.
You claim here that Jesus is the incarnation of God's revelation and that God's revelation is Scripture (because it's His authoritative word) - you equate the 2. Earlier you admitted that God's word is created when I asked if you believed a creature had the same authority as God (you said scripture was created). The word of God (or any energy of God for that matter) cannot be created. This was demonstrated in the first Ecumenical Council. This is not, nor has it ever been a Christian position.
quote:Gnosticism centers around hidden and secret knowledge that is accessed by the few and the special. Biblical Christianity is a public religion with public revelation shared publicly with the Church and preached publicly with the world.
You already said it's the individual that does the discernment. Your belief, according to your own words and Westminster confession is that the inward working of the Holy Spirit on the individual is what gives "full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth". In other words, fullness of truth comes from personal illumination. This is a core tenet of gnosticism, not Christianity. It logically follows under this belief system, that yes, the individual is in fact the ultimate authority because scripture cannot actually interpret itself. Interpretation requires a mind. Scripture is an inanimate object.
The Spirit's work at convincing someone of truth is not the same thing as providing new and secret revelation to individuals, which is what I think you are confusing with my statements.
quote:Thank you for the kind words, but I think the quote from Cool Hand Luke best describes the situation: "what we have here is a failure to communicate". Either I am failing at explaining or your are failing at understanding, or both, but I assure you that I'm not expressing agreement with gnostics or other ancient heretical groups. I'm well aware of those main groups in history and my beliefs are quite orthodox, even if they aren't entirely Orthodox.
Foo, you're obviously well-versed in scripture. I'm sure you do a lot of good work in your church, are a good neighbor, and an overall decent guy. But goodness, you have to understand that when pressed, your beliefs actually line up more with the heretics of the early Church than the Church itself. Lord have mercy.
quote:I am "home", as I am thankful that the Lord has bought me with the blood of Christ and adopted me as His son by His grace, but thank you for the concern.
Take off the blinders and come home!
Posted on 9/10/25 at 10:56 pm to Champagne
quote:You derive way too much doctrine from Christ's restoration of Peter. Peter, himself, tells the elders to shepherd the flock of God (1 Pet. 5), and he wasn't referring to his predecessor as the bishop of Rome. All of the Apostles were to feed the sheep by making disciples in the Great Commission, and that they were to minister to the flock in word and prayer (Acts 6). Peter as a fellow elder was encouraging the other elders to feed the sheep, since that was the responsibility of Christ's undershepherds, all of them, not just Peter.
Indeed so. God's revelation to humankind unfolded over many thousands of years and it includes what He directly handed down to His Church. And as we know from the Jewish Faith, the EOC and the RCC, God handed down to us some doctrines of our Faith that are not explicitly written down, because they are carried forward by Christ's Church, as He intended when he told Peter "Feed my sheep."
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:03 pm to TheDeerHunter
quote:For the most part, the schisms are over non-essential issues, though, and amount to a difference in organizational structure and authoritative submission, and while that is unfortunate and due to sin (as all division is), we still believe Christ's Church is fundamentally centered around the gospel, not around a singular bishop or set of patriarchs.
No friend, this phrase is directed at Protestants who have continued to schism into thousands of denominations, confessions and “churches”.
quote:I wouldn't say Protestants as a whole know nothing of the early Church or ignore it. I've actually spent a lot of time in the ECFs and don't have the same conclusion that the EOCs and RCCs have. I'll concede that most of Protestantism these days is a shallow mess of ignorance, both of church history and (most importantly) the Scriptures. That's a problem with faithfulness in teaching more than a problem with Protestantism, per se, IMO.
That alone shows the insanity of Protestants who know nothing of
the early Church or ignore it at their own condemnation.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:05 pm to Champagne
quote:Yeah, I know. It doesn't happen often. It's one reason why I question the emphasis on it, because it's been used so sparsely in history that it almost seems to make the issue practically moot.
The last time any Pope declared a point of theology that is infallible dates back to the year 1950. That's a long time ago.
My point is more about supreme authority, which the Pope represents and functionally embodies according to the RCC, at least at times.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:14 pm to FooManChoo
Foo the notion that the Church should have a teaching authority is in the Bible. You have read the passage about the eunuch with a scroll of Isaiah on his lap when Philip approaches him. The eunuch states that he can't hope to know what it means unless someone guides him in his understanding.
It's in the Bible, Foo. I know you have read it. That's the passage that we believe authorizes the institution of a Teaching Authority guided by the Holy Spirit. You believe that each and every individual is his own Teaching Authority and that's how we got thousands of Protestant/Reformist sects.
We need a teaching authority. Don't you explain Scripture to your flock, Foo? You don't just say "Read it for yourself, it's all there", you give them a sermon explaining the passage. You are yourself a Teaching Authority.
This is what we call a "Self-Own." Foo insists that no Teaching Authority is the way to go, but, then, we demonstrate that Foo is the Teaching Authority for his flock.
The Bible does support having a Teaching Authority. It's right there in the passage of Philip and the eunuch. And don't you try to tell me that it says something different because The Holy Spirit told me that this passage establishes the Wisdom of the Church having a Teaching Authority.
It's in the Bible, Foo. I know you have read it. That's the passage that we believe authorizes the institution of a Teaching Authority guided by the Holy Spirit. You believe that each and every individual is his own Teaching Authority and that's how we got thousands of Protestant/Reformist sects.
We need a teaching authority. Don't you explain Scripture to your flock, Foo? You don't just say "Read it for yourself, it's all there", you give them a sermon explaining the passage. You are yourself a Teaching Authority.
This is what we call a "Self-Own." Foo insists that no Teaching Authority is the way to go, but, then, we demonstrate that Foo is the Teaching Authority for his flock.
The Bible does support having a Teaching Authority. It's right there in the passage of Philip and the eunuch. And don't you try to tell me that it says something different because The Holy Spirit told me that this passage establishes the Wisdom of the Church having a Teaching Authority.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:16 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I've actually spent a lot of time in the ECFs and don't have the same conclusion that the
EOCs and RCCs have
Well, you should write a book, start a podcast, author an article or two as you seem to know more than 2000 years of doctors and theologians of the Church.
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:24 pm to Champagne
quote:Exactly. Amen.
It's right there in the passage of Philip and the eunuch
“ In Orthodox tradition, the eunuch is commemorated as a saint and is sometimes referred to as Saint Djan Darada in Russian liturgical calendars, or as Saint Aetius in Greek and Russian calendars, though these names are not found in the original biblical text or early patristic writings. The Orthodox Church recognizes him as an Apostle and a foundational figure in the establishment of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which traces its origins to his return to Ethiopia after his conversion”
But then such history is unknown to the heretics as this would counter their reliance on self-interpretation.
This post was edited on 9/10/25 at 11:25 pm
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:46 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I never said that Jesus is the Bible, or that the Bible is Jesus. I said that both the Bible--God's inscripturated revelation--and Jesus are called by Scripture the "word". While I believe the Bible had a beginning (it had to be written down in time and space), Jesus Christ had no beginning as God. His humanity had a beginning, but His divine nature did not. I think you are confusing my statements. I hope this has clarified my position for you.
Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification. However, you did state that the word of God is created and that that created word holds equal authority to God. That is still a type of Arianism, which is why I said almost textbook.
quote:
Gnosticism centers around hidden and secret knowledge that is accessed by the few and the special. Biblical Christianity is a public religion with public revelation shared publicly with the Church and preached publicly with the world.
I agree with this statement on its face. However, as you have previously claimed, you are a 5 point Calvinist that adheres to classical reformation theology. Again, let's go to the Westminster confession and see what it says about the elect:
quote:
X. Of Effectual Calling
I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
According to your own confession, only a select few will have their minds enlightened "to understand the things of God". This fits exactly with the definition of gnosticism you provided.
If you claim to adhere to the Westminster confession, then this statement
quote:
The Spirit's work at convincing someone of truth is not the same thing as providing new and secret revelation to individuals
Rings hollow.
quote:
I am thankful that the Lord has bought me with the blood of Christ and adopted me as His son by His grace,
Thank God! If you ever want to experience a Divine Liturgy, you're always welcome. Come to coffee hour. We don't bite. Though sometimes conversations can get wild like the rant on gamedays (minus the smut, of course)
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:52 pm to TheDeerHunter
quote:
“ In Orthodox tradition, the eunuch is commemorated as a saint and is sometimes referred to as Saint Djan Darada in Russian liturgical calendars, or as Saint Aetius in Greek and Russian calendars, though these names are not found in the original biblical text or early patristic writings. The Orthodox Church recognizes him as an Apostle and a foundational figure in the establishment of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which traces its origins to his return to Ethiopia after his conversion”
Sts Veronica, Photini, and Salome were also in the Bible!
I love reading about the saints. Our priest does a fantastic job of tying their lives in with the day's readings during his homilies. If I could be just a ten thousandth of what they were, I think I would be able to consider myself a decent Christian
Posted on 9/10/25 at 11:53 pm to Knartfocker
quote:
If I could be just a ten thousandth of what they were, I think I would be able to consider myself a decent Christian
Amen, St. Photini is a favorite of mine along with St. Mary of Egypt.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 7:52 am to Champagne
quote:It does have teaching authority. I haven’t claimed otherwise.
Foo the notion that the Church should have a teaching authority is in the Bible.
There is a misunderstanding non-Protestants have that when we talk about sola scriptura, we mean that Scripture is our only authority. That’s not what we mean at all. We recognize that there are other God-ordained authorities that the Christian must submit to in the Lord. The difference is that we believe all other authorities are fallible, while the Bible alone is infallible.
quote:The eunuch having and reading the Scriptures privately goes against the RCC view of private reading (which is why the RCC had discouraged and even outlawed at times the private ownership of the Bible) and private interpretation. He shouldn’t have had or been reading it if he agreed with that view.
You have read the passage about the eunuch with a scroll of Isaiah on his lap when Philip approaches him. The eunuch states that he can't hope to know what it means unless someone guides him in his understanding.
It's in the Bible, Foo. I know you have read it. That's the passage that we believe authorizes the institution of a Teaching Authority guided by the Holy Spirit. You believe that each and every individual is his own Teaching Authority and that's how we got thousands of Protestant/Reformist sects.
Secondly, I believe your interpretation of the eunuch’s words are wrong. You seem to think that he is saying that it is impossible for him to know what the Scriptures say without a teacher (the Church). If that were true, it would make no sense for him to have the scroll and to be reading it. He was on his way to Jerusalem and undoubtedly to hear the Scriptures read and expounded at the Temple of synagogues, so he wouldn’t have needed to be reading the scroll at all if he didn’t think he could understand it to some degree.
Instead, what he shows is humility in wanting and even needing to some extent a guide to help him understand it rightly and more fully. You are right in that God gave the church teachers (1 Cor. 12:28-29) and His Spirit for this very reason, but as a help and guide, not because the Bible is impossible to understand in itself. The people of Israel were to have their own copies of the law that they were to read, memorize, and even teach to their children (Deut. 6). Even John 20:31 states that the purpose of the gospel narrative he wrote was for the common knowledge and understanding of the reader and hearer so that they would believe in Christ and have eternal life.
quote:Again, I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m a pastor of a congregation that preaches sermons and all that. I’m not. I submit to a pastor and other elders like the rest of the people at my church.
We need a teaching authority. Don't you explain Scripture to your flock, Foo? You don't just say "Read it for yourself, it's all there", you give them a sermon explaining the passage. You are yourself a Teaching Authority.
But to your point, yes, we do have a pastor that preaches and teaches and elders who help in explaining the Scriptures. The issue is not with a teaching office, but with the infallibility of that office, and also with the clarity of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are clear enough to know and understand what is necessary for salvation, but it has difficult parts as well, and teachers are there for helping understand more fully what is clear, and helping understand rightly the unclear or difficult passages, though not infallibly. The Spirit must ultimately be at work in the person for illumination.
quote:It seems you are so eager to see a “self own” that you are not reading what I’m saying or just glossing over it without understanding.
This is what we call a "Self-Own." Foo insists that no Teaching Authority is the way to go, but, then, we demonstrate that Foo is the Teaching Authority for his flock.
Again, I’m not a teaching elder/pastor. And I don’t deny that God gives teachers as gifts and helps to His Church. I deny the RCC teaching about the Scriptures and the infallibility of the Church in its role as teacher.
quote:See above.
The Bible does support having a Teaching Authority. It's right there in the passage of Philip and the eunuch. And don't you try to tell me that it says something different because The Holy Spirit told me that this passage establishes the Wisdom of the Church having a Teaching Authority.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 7:54 am to TheDeerHunter
quote:As with all things, the more I know the more I know that I don’t know.
Well, you should write a book, start a podcast, author an article or two as you seem to know more than 2000 years of doctors and theologians of the Church.
There are plenty of people writing books and having podcasts and the like. I have no interest for that.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 8:17 am to Knartfocker
quote:Again, I’m speaking of God’s words of revelation, which were given to man in a point in time. In that sense the Bible was “created”, as in having a time when it was not revealed and written for men, and then it was.
Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification. However, you did state that the word of God is created and that that created word holds equal authority to God. That is still a type of Arianism, which is why I said almost textbook.
Because the revelation is truth from God, it carries God's authority. It is as if when we read it, God is speaking from Heaven to us directly, and we must obey it because it is God’s command and revelation and carries His authoritative stamp.
So yes, it is God’s word that has His divine authority, but no, the Bible as a document is not eternal, but came into being at some point through the creation of the paper and ink and the writing down of God’s revealed word by men in time and space. I’m not saying that God had a beginning.
quote:I don’t see that it does.
According to your own confession, only a select few will have their minds enlightened "to understand the things of God". This fits exactly with the definition of gnosticism you provided.
If you claim to adhere to the Westminster confession, then this statement
The Spirit's work at convincing someone of truth is not the same thing as providing new and secret revelation to individuals
Rings hollow.
What we are talking about is a difference in category. The Gnostics taught that they alone had a secret message or revelation given to them that didn’t go to anyone else, and you had to be taught by them alone to get that message.
The WCF is saying that the elect have the same message as everyone else from the Scriptures. The point being made is not that there is a hidden or secret message that only the elect have, but that the public message of the Bible is available to everyone, but requires the Spirit’s illuminating work in the elect person for them to rightly understand and receive it by faith.
Think of it this way: I’m sure you wouldn’t say that the Church is gnostic just because she alone can rightly interpret the Bible, right? I assume you would say that the Church has an infallible interpretation or at least authority to rightly interpret the Bible that doesn’t exist outside herself. That’s all the WCF is saying, but applying that role and authority to the Holy Spirit instead of the Church.
quote:I appreciate the offer and take it with the spirit in which it was given.
Thank God! If you ever want to experience a Divine Liturgy, you're always welcome. Come to coffee hour. We don't bite. Though sometimes conversations can get wild like the rant on gamedays (minus the smut, of course)
I’ll have to decline. I’m convinced in the rightness of what the Scriptures say as faithfully summarized by the WCF and cannot depart from what I believe is the truth. Also, I visited an EO church back in college and wasn’t a fan of the elaborate liturgy. I like the simplicity of Reformed worship without all the “smells and bells”. Thanks anyway
Posted on 9/11/25 at 9:16 am to FooManChoo
quote:
So yes, it is God’s word that has His divine authority, but no, the Bible as a document is not eternal, but came into being at some point through the creation of the paper and ink and the writing down of God’s revealed word by men in time and space. I’m not saying that God had a beginning.
Is the Bible God's spoken word? Is God's spoken word created or uncreated?
quote:
The WCF is saying that the elect have the same message as everyone else from the Scriptures. The point being made is not that there is a hidden or secret message that only the elect have, but that the public message of the Bible is available to everyone, but requires the Spirit’s illuminating work in the elect person for them to rightly understand and receive it by faith.
According to the WCF, in order to understand the truth, you have to first be elect. The elect gets a personal illumination (the inward work) from the Holy Spirit that gives him "full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth". Furthermore, it acknowledges "the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word ". Only the elect have a correct understanding. You're describing a saving knowledge, a core tenet of gnostic teaching.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 9:50 am to Knartfocker
quote:The Bible is God's revelation. It is entirely written at this point, and includes some audible speech from God. The rest is God's word recorded by men, as they were carried along by the Spirit.
Is the Bible God's spoken word? Is God's spoken word created or uncreated?
Using the word "created" doesn't make sense to me in this context. I usually think of creation as an act of power that forms something from nothing. God's word is more of an extension of Himself, reflecting His character, works, acts, and intentions, revealed to man. The "words" of Scripture came into being materially when they were written down, but they express eternal truths.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here.
quote:Again, you are confusing a message with understanding of the message, and you're taking one element of Gnosticism and trying to apply it to bibical teaching (that the natural person cannot accept the spiritual things of God, but that they are spiritually discerned, 1 Cor. 2:14).
According to the WCF, in order to understand the truth, you have to first be elect. The elect gets a personal illumination (the inward work) from the Holy Spirit that gives him "full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth". Furthermore, it acknowledges "the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word ". Only the elect have a correct understanding. You're describing a saving knowledge, a core tenet of gnostic teaching.
Gnosticism is a broad term that covered several sects with different specific beliefs, but one of the unifying principles is this idea of secret knowledge (the word Gnostic comes from gnosis, which means knowledge, and more specifically a spiritual knowledge). The Gnostics taught that certain teachers had a secret knowledge that was unknown to others, and that this knowledge was only shared with select individuals who showed themselves worthy of receiving it. This knowledge was able to be understood by those worthy to do so, and that the goal of receiving this knowledge was to wake the individual up to the divine spark inside them so that they could be freed from the material world.
In contrast, the Reformed (biblical) view is that the gospel is proclaimed as a public, historical knowledge freely to all mankind. The Bible is a public record of revelation given to the Church, but all men can and should access it for themselves, as all men have a duty to obey God and follow Christ. The teachers of Christianity do not have a claim to secret knowledge like the Gnostics claimed, but have a shared public faith in Christ and in His publicaly revealed word in the Bible.
The description of the Spirit's work of illumination is not the same thing as personal, secret revelation, as the Gnostics taught. In fact, in that same paragraph of the WCF that was quoted, it says regarding God's revelation, "...unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men". The concept of the Spirit's work of illumination is contrasted with secret or additional revelation of the Spirit.
And no, the WCF doesn't use the phrase "saving knowledge", but "saving understanding". Those are different things, and certainly not Gnostic.
Would you agree that the EOC alone has the correct understanding of the Scriptures, and without joining with and submitting to the EOC, that no one can come to a saving and/or true understanding of the the Scriptures?
Posted on 9/11/25 at 9:50 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The eunuch having and reading the Scriptures privately goes against the RCC view of private reading (which is why the RCC had discouraged and even outlawed at times the private ownership of the Bible) and private interpretation. He shouldn’t have had or been reading it if he agreed with that view.
That's a real lie, Foo. Catholics at Mass, which is celebrated daily, read from the Bible and the Priest addressed the Bible readings in a homily. Why are you trying to "turn the table" on my point about Teaching Authority? You are trying to deflect here. Also, just about every Catholic Church has Bible Study. Mine has TWO different Bible study groups and because these are sponsored by the Bishop we know that many others have this.
The Catholic view has always been that the people should embrace Scripture under the guidance of the Teaching Authority, and this view is in perfect alignment with the Bible passage to which I referred.
Page 24 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News