- 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 9/11/25 at 9:52 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 9/11/25 at 9:52 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Secondly, I believe your interpretation of the eunuch’s words are wrong.
I believe THIS. I believe THAT. I believe what I say that the Holy Spirit says to me.
The Holy Spirit told me that YOUR interpretation of that Bible passage is inaccurate and MINE is correct. See? You are arguing with the Holy Spirit.
1
Posted on 9/11/25 at 9:55 am to FooManChoo
quote:
needing to some extent a guide to help him understand it rightly and more fully.
Thank you for conceding the point that this Bible passage supports the theological propriety of having a Teaching Authority for the Church and the Teaching Authority is guided by the Holy Spirit because the Church prays for that. Since that Teaching Authority is guided by none other than the Third Person in the Trinity of the Godhead of Almighty God, we shall leave it to you to judge whether or not the Holy Spirit is Infallible.
If you are not a Pastor, I apologize for my mistake.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 9:58 am to Knartfocker
quote:
According to the WCF, in order to understand the truth, you have to first be elect.
I agree that this is a form of Gnosticism and that the EOC/RCC correctly avoided this theological error, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 10:00 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The description of the Spirit's work of illumination is not the same thing as personal, secret revelation, as the Gnostics taught.
Right. It's not exactly the same. It's just similar.
The word "predestination" does appear in some of Paul's letters. The Church, over the course of many centuries was force to contend with the full theological impact and meaning of Paul's usage of the word. The EOC/RCC struggled together with this theological challenge and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, reached and discerned God's view on the topic.
John Calvin comes along many centuries later and says that all of the Church scholars and Doctors of the Church who lived wrote and spoke in so many past Centuries had it all wrong and that John Calvin got it right.
Well, Calvin's theological view on this point is too similar to Gnosticism and that's why the EOC/RCC rejected this theological approach. If a Calvinist thinks differently, he is free to do so, but, PLEASE, Lord, let NO Calvinist dare to come before me and absolutely insist that the EOC RCC view is wrong and that JOHN CALVIN (?!?) (are you kidding) is right.
This post was edited on 9/11/25 at 10:06 am
Posted on 9/11/25 at 10:06 am to FooManChoo
quote:
There are plenty of people writing books and having podcasts and the like. I have no interest for that.
I was being facetious.
This post was edited on 9/11/25 at 10:29 am
Posted on 9/11/25 at 10:33 am to Champagne
quote:Forgive me if I wasn't clear, but that wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to private, individual reading and interpretation of the Scriptures, not the public reading and teaching from the Priests. I was actually contrasting those two things.
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.
quote:I'm trying to show that your usage of the eunuch is incorrect, but actually points to the opposite of the RCC's teaching and/or practice.
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.
Do your Bible studies allow for lay people to lead them without the supervision of the Bishop, using their own interpretations or resources apart from the Catholic Catechism or other official documents?
quote:I wouldn't agree with the word "always", as historically, there were times where that was truly not the case in terms of the people having individual access to the Scriptures. If you mean that they should embrace the Scriptures through the Teaching Authority of the Church and only by their handling of them, then that is my understanding of what the RCC's teaching has been, and that runs counter to the Scriptures, including this example of the eunuch having a copy of the Scriptures that he was reading on his own before encountering Stephen.
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.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 10:37 am to Champagne
quote:You do the same thing, except your faith is in the Magisterium of the Church rather than the Scriptures alone.
I believe THIS. I believe THAT. I believe what I say that the Holy Spirit says to me.
quote:I'm not claiming that everything I believe is true and perfect and pure theology from the Spirit. I believe it is from the word of God, but that it could be my own sinful error mixed with truth revealed by the Spirit. Part of sanctification is reformation and conformity to all truth.
The Holy Spirit told me that YOUR interpretation of that Bible passage is inaccurate and MINE is correct. See? You are arguing with the Holy Spirit.
That's why the Scriptures are the final authority, not someone's subjective interpretation. That's why we study and discuss the Scriptures together to help inform our thinking.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 10:41 am to Champagne
quote:I don't deny that the Church has teaching authority, but what I'm denying is that that authority is infallible. You are the one who is claiming that the Church is perfectly and infallibly guided by the Spirit and therefore cannot err. I'm rejecting that. The only infallible rule for faith and life of the Church is Scripture.
Thank you for conceding the point that this Bible passage supports the theological propriety of having a Teaching Authority for the Church and the Teaching Authority is guided by the Holy Spirit because the Church prays for that. Since that Teaching Authority is guided by none other than the Third Person in the Trinity of the Godhead of Almighty God, we shall leave it to you to judge whether or not the Holy Spirit is Infallible.
quote:No problem.
If you are not a Pastor, I apologize for my mistake.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 10:42 am to Champagne
quote:I have gone out of my way to explain why this teaching is not "Gnostic", so if you still think it is, I don't know what else to say to help you out. It isn't. The Reformers rejected that heretical teaching and clearly accounted for such things within the WCF in particular, as I've pointed out.
I agree that this is a form of Gnosticism and that the EOC/RCC correctly avoided this theological error, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 10:53 am to Champagne
quote:No, it's not. I've explained why it's not. The key differentiator is that the Gnostics held their knowledge secretly while Christianity is a public religion with public, published and open Scriptures that are proclaimed freely to all. The work of the Spirit illuminating as He will is not what the Gnostics were teaching. They were teaching that there was a special category of spiritual knowledge that was reserved for private and select individuals.
Right. It's not exactly the same. It's just similar.
quote:And got it wrong.
The word "predestination" does appear in some of Paul's letters. The Church, over the course of many centuries was force to contend with the full theological impact and meaning of Paul's usage of the word. The EOC/RCC struggled together with this theological challenge and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, reached and discerned God's view on the topic.
quote:I think you are contradicting yourself. If "all of the Church scholars and Doctors of the Church" were in agreement, then how was this a struggle? You make it seem like this was a unanimous, and frankly, easy decision, if there was such full agreement.
John Calvin comes along many centuries later and says that all of the Church scholars and Doctors of the Church who lived wrote and spoke in so many past Centuries had it all wrong and that John Calvin got it right.
Luther and Calvin and others came along and checked the RCC's work and saw that they got it wrong (because the RCC is not infallible). They went back to the Scriptures and saw that what they said didn't match up with what the RCC was teaching, and since the Scriptures are the only God-breathed and perfect standard, they sided with the Scriptures.
quote:I don't personally care if Calvin is right or wrong. He was going back to the Scriptures and re-set the example for Christians everywhere.
Well, Calvin's theological view on this point is too similar to Gnosticism and that's why the EOC/RCC rejected this theological approach. If a Calvinist thinks differently, he is free to do so, but, PLEASE, Lord, let NO Calvinist dare to come before me and absolutely insist that the EOC RCC view is wrong and that JOHN CALVIN (?!?) (are you kidding) is right.
That might be hard for you to comprehend, because you look to other individuals or institutions to be told what to believe, but I don't look to John Calvin to get my theological points to believe. I reference him to get his take, but I don't believe anything just because he said it. He could be wrong on one thing or many things and it wouldn't change anything for me, because the object of my faith and the source of truth is not John Calvin, but Jesus Christ as revealed through His word in the Scriptures.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 11:11 am to FooManChoo
quote:
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
Now you're saying God's word is uncreated (an extension of something uncreated is necessarily uncreated). Maybe you're not as Arian as you initially made yourself out to be. But now you've introduced a new problem.
From your WCF:
quote:
I. Of the Holy Scripture
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
quote:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture
And this, which you have affirmed in many threads:
quote:
The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself
God's word is uncreated. Scripture is God's word and His new full revelation to man. Scripture can interpret itself.
Interpretation requires a mind. So if you hold to the belief that Scripture can interpret itself, you must also, by necessity, believe that Scripture has a mind of its own to interpret itself. Now you've introduced another uncreated person in the Godhead. You're not trinitarian. You're quadrinitarian.
Which, needless to say, is not a Christian belief.
quote:
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
A public faith that only the chosen elect will be illumined to understand according to your own confession. Everyone else is still in the dark, even though they can sound out the words on the page. The gnostics all had access to the same texts but only the enlightened could see the true message. Yes they wrote their own stuff, but a majority of what they used and interpreted was the Bible. It's the exact same concept as your confession.
Also, you can't claim something to be biblical if you can't point to an authority outside of a personal illumination of the Holy Spirit. Your conscience doesn't bind mine or anyone else's. If your position, in accordance with the WCF, is that the authority of the canon of Scripture is true because the Holy Spirit told you, then you're in no better a position than the Mormons. They use the exact same argumentation.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 11:47 am to Knartfocker
quote:You're conflating categories here. The Scriptures are not uncreated, as they are not God. They are God's revelation. God's revelation reflects and is consistent with God's character and being, but they are not identical to God, as we do not worship the Bible, we only worship God. Yet, because the Bible is God's word, we revere it as authoritative to us because it reflects God's authority. You keep wanting to make it seem like they are identical, so when you parse out language about Scripture, you're applying that directly to God, trying to accuse me of heresies.
God's word is uncreated. Scripture is God's word and His new full revelation to man. Scripture can interpret itself.
Interpretation requires a mind. So if you hold to the belief that Scripture can interpret itself, you must also, by necessity, believe that Scripture has a mind of its own to interpret itself. Now you've introduced another uncreated person in the Godhead. You're not trinitarian. You're quadrinitarian.
Which, needless to say, is not a Christian belief.
I'll also comment that when I say "Scripture interprets Scripture", I'm using that as shorthand for what the WCF states, which you quoted: "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself". I've underlined the key word. It's a rule of interpretation, not a statement that the Scripture has a mind of itself. Humans interpret Scripture according to the standard of Scripture itself. Another way of putting it is that we are to use Scripture to help us interpret other Scripture. If there is a verse that is unclear or confusing, we are to go elsewhere in the Scriptures to help us understand it more clearly.
quote:Not quite. First, the Gnostics used the Bible as a basis for some of their teachings but had their own secret teachings that went beyond the Bible. Their "knowledge" was not public, but secret and selective. That matters in this discussion. The secret teachings of the Gnostics went beyond Scripture and even contradicted it. The message of Christianity is in full view in the Bible, and everyone can have access to it.
A public faith that only the chosen elect will be illumined to understand according to your own confession. Everyone else is still in the dark, even though they can sound out the words on the page. The gnostics all had access to the same texts but only the enlightened could see the true message. Yes they wrote their own stuff, but a majority of what they used and interpreted was the Bible. It's the exact same concept as your confession.
Secondly, the "in the dark" speaks to spiritual understanding only. That isn't to say the Bible is some codex that is absolutely unintelligible unless you have the special cypher of the Spirit. It just means the best you can hope for is an intellectual understanding of the factual things that the Bible says, rather than having a "heart knowledge" that the Spirit provides, applying the truths of Scripture to the individual. The Spirit gives that "aha moment" to Christians to see the truth for what it is and changes the heart to receive it as truth that is trustworthy for everlasting life as the true word of God.
quote:The Spirit is the confirmation to the individual that it is what it claims to be, but the argument is not that the authority of Scripture is derived from the individual's belief in it. This goes back to the difference between God creating the canon and the Church receiving it. The canon isn't the canon because the Church said so, but it is the canon because God created it as such. In other words, we're talking about cause and effect. Something is biblical because it conforms to God's word, not because the Spirit illumines the mind of the person to receive it. Or as I said earlier, God determines it, the Church (or the Christian) receives it, and the Spirit confirms it.
Also, you can't claim something to be biblical if you can't point to an authority outside of a personal illumination of the Holy Spirit. Your conscience doesn't bind mine or anyone else's. If your position, in accordance with the WCF, is that the authority of the canon of Scripture is true because the Holy Spirit told you, then you're in no better a position than the Mormons. They use the exact same argumentation.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 3:23 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You're conflating categories here. The Scriptures are not uncreated, as they are not God. They are God's revelation. God's revelation reflects and is consistent with God's character and being, but they are not identical to God, as we do not worship the Bible, we only worship God.
You kinda brought it on yourself when you said there is no higher authority than the Bible then proceeded to say "God's word is his revelation to man" and "Jesus incarnate was God's revelation to man". You can see how that could cause conflation.
quote:
I'll also comment that when I say "Scripture interprets Scripture", I'm using that as shorthand for what the WCF states, which you quoted: "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself". I've underlined the key word. It's a rule of interpretation, not a statement that the Scripture has a mind of itself. Humans interpret Scripture according to the standard of Scripture itself. Another way of putting it is that we are to use Scripture to help us interpret other Scripture. If there is a verse that is unclear or confusing, we are to go elsewhere in the Scriptures to help us understand it more clearly.
You're actually doing the meme
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. If scripture is its own and only infallible authority, it is the only thing that can bind someone to an interpretation, ergo it must interpret itself.The person is just a middleman in this paradigm because only scripture has the authority to interpret scripture.
And once again, interpretation requires a mind. So now, we have a created person of equal authority to God. You're right back to Arianism.
quote:
Not quite. First, the Gnostics used the Bible as a basis for some of their teachings but had their own secret teachings that went beyond the Bible. Their "knowledge" was not public, but secret and selective. That matters in this discussion. The secret teachings of the Gnostics went beyond Scripture and even contradicted it. The message of Christianity is in full view in the Bible, and everyone can have access to it.
Secondly, the "in the dark" speaks to spiritual understanding only. That isn't to say the Bible is some codex that is absolutely unintelligible unless you have the special cypher of the Spirit. It just means the best you can hope for is an intellectual understanding of the factual things that the Bible says, rather than having a "heart knowledge" that the Spirit provides, applying the truths of Scripture to the individual. The Spirit gives that "aha moment" to Christians to see the truth for what it is and changes the heart to receive it as truth that is trustworthy for everlasting life as the true word of God
You can try to paint it however you like, but the similarities are undeniable.
The gnostics had the enlightened and the unenlightend. The enlightened were able to understand fuller "truth" after individual enlightenment. They believed in a saving knowledge.
Your theology has the elect and the unelect. Only the elect are able to understand the thing of God. And you have to be elect before you can understand the things of God. Further, only your elect can claim an inward working of the Holy Spirit (because your unelect have a sin nature and are totally depraved and are incapable if accepting God).
If an elect and unelect person were sitting next to each other, reading the exact same passage, based on their inward illumination of the Spirit of God (or lack thereof), they would reach different conclusions about its meaning. This is clearly a type of saving knowledge.
quote:
The Spirit is the confirmation to the individual that it is what it claims to be, but the argument is not that the authority of Scripture is derived from the individual's belief in it.
Yes. We've already discussed this. The authority from Scripture comes from Scripture itself. You did the meme again.
quote:
God determines it, the Church (or the Christian) receives it, and the Spirit confirms it.
Cool. Who exactly were the people that received the Bible? What did they do? Could anybody have received it?
Posted on 9/11/25 at 3:40 pm to Knartfocker
Sola Looptura is a perfect meme. Thanks for that.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 6:04 pm to FooManChoo
Foo,
I want to apologize for not being humble and gentle in my responses to you and for impugning your motives.
What’s the point if one gains the whole world and loses their soul in the process?
Signed,
TheDeerHunter aka the Chief Sinner
I want to apologize for not being humble and gentle in my responses to you and for impugning your motives.
What’s the point if one gains the whole world and loses their soul in the process?
Signed,
TheDeerHunter aka the Chief Sinner
This post was edited on 9/11/25 at 6:06 pm
Posted on 9/11/25 at 6:06 pm to Knartfocker
quote:Yeah, no, I don't think I did
You kinda brought it on yourself when you said there is no higher authority than the Bible then proceeded to say "God's word is his revelation to man" and "Jesus incarnate was God's revelation to man". You can see how that could cause conflation
I'm just talking about the authority of God's word and you've turned this into a heresy hunt, where you're trying to nail me on some Arian or Gnostic heresy. At least, that's what it seems like to me.
What I've been saying has been commonplace in Protestantism for the past almost 500 years with a lot of time, prayer, and theological brainpower put behind it to ensure clarity. Maybe I'm not being clear, but I'm aware of those heresies that you're pointing out and I'm not subscribing to them.
quote:Scripture being the "normative authority" doesn't mean it can't be misinterpreted. The same holds true for the Church. People misunderstand and misinterpret the Church's teachings all the time. If I had a nickel for every time Champagne calls out someone as being a "bad Catholic"... for example. I'm sure the same holds true for the EOC, because that's the nature of all authority.
You're actually doing the meme
quote:It sets the rule of interpretation that must be done by the individual, who has a mind. The truth is the truth, and it doesn't change. We are not called to create it, but to receive it (same concept as the canon as a whole).
If scripture is its own and only infallible authority, it is the only thing that can bind someone to an interpretation, ergo it must interpret itself.
quote:That's not what is claimed. People interpret. The Scripture declares the truth. It's up to us to understand the truth, and we do that by studying the Scriptures to understand it, using the Scripture as the highest authority to do so.
The person is just a middleman in this paradigm because only scripture has the authority to interpret scripture.
Just as the RCC and the EOC looks to the Church to understand difficult passages in the Bible, Protestants (indeed, everyone should) look to the rest of the Bible as a whole to understand difficult passages. It may be difficult at times, but that's the paradigm; it's what Jesus and the Apostles did.
quote:Again, people interpret. That's why the language of the WCF is that Scripture is the only infallible rule for interpretation, because Scripture doesn't interpret itself, it sets the rules for interpretation. Rules don't need minds, just like a ruler doesn't need a mind for a person to use it to measure length.
And once again, interpretation requires a mind. So now, we have a created person of equal authority to God. You're right back to Arianism
quote:As with a lot of comparisons, it's not the similarities that matter but the differences. You can have to similarly-sized bottles of pills with words that begin with an "A" on them, but you'll get very different results if you take them, if one is Aspirin and the other is Arsenic. It's not how they are the same, but how they are different that matters. My beliefs are not "Gnostic" and they aren't "Arian".
You can try to paint it however you like, but the similarities are undeniable.
quote:Everyone believes in a saving knowledge, even the EOC. You claim to have the "mysteries of the faith" in a way that others don't. You have salvation in the Church in a way that others don't. You have the truth of God's word in a way that others don't. I wouldn't say that's Gnostic in and of itself.
The gnostics had the enlightened and the unenlightend. The enlightened were able to understand fuller "truth" after individual enlightenment. They believed in a saving knowledge.
The Scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit provides understanding (John 14:6). Is that Gnosticism? No. Jesus said in Matthew 11:25 that He thanks God for revealing the truth to some and hiding it from others. Is that Gnosticism? No. Likewise in Matthew 13:11, Jesus said "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given". Is that Gnosticism? No. In 1 John 5:20, we are told that "the Son of God has come and has given us understanding". Is that Gnosticism? No. Again in 1 Corinthians 2:14, we are told that the spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Is that Gnosticism? No.
You have to wrestle with the notion that the Bible teaches that wisdom and knowledge come from God, and that He doesn't give it to everyoen in the same way. That isn't Gnosticism, because Gnosticism is focused on secret revelation, not public revelation.
quote:That's what the Scriptures teach, and yet understanding is not the same as a secret teaching, which was the foundation of Gnosticism. Humans being selective in how they share their so-called teachings is different from God being selective in providing spiritual understanding of His public revelation.
Your theology has the elect and the unelect. Only the elect are able to understand the thing of God. And you have to be elect before you can understand the things of God. Further, only your elect can claim an inward working of the Holy Spirit (because your unelect have a sin nature and are totally depraved and are incapable if accepting God).
quote:No, it's a type of saving understanding. Again, we're talking about two different categories. The Gnostics claimed to have secret knowledge. The Bible is public knowledge that is only spiritually discerned (understood). Even the unbeliever can have an intellectual knowledge of the Bible.
If an elect and unelect person were sitting next to each other, reading the exact same passage, based on their inward illumination of the Spirit of God (or lack thereof), they would reach different conclusions about its meaning. This is clearly a type of saving knowledge.
quote:It's not that the authority of Scripture comes from Scripture, it's that it's authority is self-authenticating because it comes from God. It's God's revelation, coming from Him, so it bears His ultimate authority. There always has to be an ultimate authority that nothing can appeal to higher than that. God is that authority, and God's word acts as that authority for the Church. In the RCC and EOC, I believe that ultimate authority turns out to be the Church, itself, at least in practice.
Yes. We've already discussed this. The authority from Scripture comes from Scripture itself. You did the meme again.
quote:At the beginning, the churches who the letters were written to had their own copies. Those copies spread throughout the congregations. There was a historical pedigree of the writings that came from the Apostles or those associated with them.
Cool. Who exactly were the people that received the Bible? What did they do? Could anybody have received it?
I don't know what you mean by "anybody". Those whom the writings were written to and shared with received them.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 6:10 pm to TheDeerHunter
quote:Apology accepted, and thank you for that. We can have strong disagreements, but we are commanded to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15)
I want to apologize for not being humble and gentle in my responses to you. What’s the point if one gains the whole world and loses their soul in the process?
That goes for me, as well, and I'm not perfect at that either. So, if I have been short with you in my writings or have come across as hurtful, I apologize. I'm trying hard not to let my frustrations get the best of me, but I'll say with you (and Paul) that I'm the chief of sinners, and undeserving of God's mercy.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 6:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
We can have strong disagreements, but we are commanded to speak the truth in love
Thank you.
We obviously disagree on much. May God be glorified in all things in our future debate.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 9:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Scripture being the "normative authority" doesn't mean it can't be misinterpreted.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
It sets the rule of interpretation that must be done by the individual, who has a mind. The truth is the truth, and it doesn't change. We are not called to create it, but to receive it (same concept as the canon as a whole).
+
quote:
People interpret. The Scripture declares the truth. It's up to us to understand the truth, and we do that by studying the Scriptures to understand it, using the Scripture as the highest authority to do so.
+
quote:
Again, people interpret. That's why the language of the WCF is that Scripture is the only infallible rule for interpretation, because Scripture doesn't interpret itself, it sets the rules for interpretation.
After ~30 pages, you finally admit that you believe God's revelation is left up to individual interpretation. Your entire paradigm is based on your own authority to properly interpret scripture. You are your own arbiter of truth. You've lost the argument. This is the ultimate self-own
There's no reason to respond any further because it's ultimately my Church and her 2000 years of tradition (which includes the Bible) vs 1 man's opinion.
Posted on 9/11/25 at 9:43 pm to Knartfocker
quote:I don't know how to say it any other way than I have. I have responded to each particular criticism and false accusation about my beliefs with what I thought was clear explanation, but apparently I have failed there, so please forgive me for my feeble attempts here.
After ~30 pages, you finally admit that you believe God's revelation is left up to individual interpretation. Your entire paradigm is based on your own authority to properly interpret scripture. You are your own arbiter of truth. You've lost the argument. This is the ultimate self-own
I have not said that the individual is the arbiter of truth. I have said just the opposite, that God's word is the arbiter of truth, and we are required to submit to it as the rule for faith and life and be willing to be corrected by it.
quote:I'll stick with the Bible rather than man's traditions as my final authority.
There's no reason to respond any further because it's ultimately my Church and her 2000 years of tradition (which includes the Bible) vs 1 man's opinion.
Page 25 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News