- 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: How is it possible that some Protestant churches support gay marriage?
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:05 am to Furious
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:05 am to Furious
quote:That's not a fair characterization of all Protestant churches.
Because “some churches” are 100% Protestant. Protestant churches, all of them, pick and choose what teachings of Jesus to follow. There is not a single Protestant church that follows all of Jesus’ teachings.
All churches have error to one degree or another, but that error is not the same thing as picking and choosing Christ's teachings. The issue is a misunderstanding about what Christ actually taught. No one to my knowledge is saying "I know Jesus taught Hell exists, but I reject that Hell exists anyway", outside of non-Christians, perhaps.
The same accusation of picking and choosing Christ's teachings can just as easily be leveled against Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, from His teaching on partaking of Him spiritually by faith to allowing the traditions of men to make void the Scriptures, there are errors abounding in those two traditions in particular, however I doubt you would agree and say that they are picking and choosing.
1
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:12 am to FooManChoo
Partaking of him spiritually? You mean the Eucharist? None of the early Church fathers believed that the Eucharist merely represented the body and blood of Christ. They all thought that there was a transformation. Again, these are the men that knew the apostles.
As far as I know, the idea that the Eucharist was a mere representation, as well as sola scriptura, and sola fide, are ideas that developed randomly after 1500 years of Christianity.
As far as I know, the idea that the Eucharist was a mere representation, as well as sola scriptura, and sola fide, are ideas that developed randomly after 1500 years of Christianity.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:13 am to Uga Alum
quote:The Scriptures were completed by the end of the first century. We know what the Scriptures are, but I've yet to see a Catholic or Orthodox Christian provide a codified list of all the oral traditions given to the Church. Even the RCC didn't formalize the canon until the Council of Trent in the 1500s, as there were many devout Catholics that rejected the canonicity (in terms of authority) of the deuterocanonical books. The ECFs seemed to have two different classifications of Scriptures--those books that were authoritative and those books that were helpful to the Church--and therefore many had differing views on the canon all the way until the 1500s.
The Orthodox Church has more than just the interpretations of scripture. We have our oral tradition that was passed down from Christ to the apostles and then the early church fathers. The New Testament was not finalized until sever hundred years after the the beginning of the church. Personally, I think that learning from the early church fathers, who actually knew the apostles, would be a more credible source than following the interpretations of men that were born 1500-1800 years after Christ’s death.
As a Reformed Protestant Christian, I also enjoy reading the ECFs and learning what they believed and taught. What has been interesting to me is that vast diversity of beliefs between them. They are not monolithic in their beliefs as many Catholics and Orthodox claim, or at least imply.
Also, the Reformers relied heavily on those that came before them, especially men like Augustine, to formulate their clear articulations of what the Scriptures teach. I enjoy reading books from the Puritans and Reformers, and they are often times soaked with quotations from Augustine, Jerome, and Chrysostom, among many others. Like I said, the ECFs were not monolithic in their beliefs and teachings, and the Reformers were not inventing something out of thin air but went back to the Scriptures first and foremost (which is why sola scriptura was a fundamental teaching by them).
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:14 am to Uga Alum
quote:
Some churches get more off base than others.
I get it. I just don't, for the most part, throw labels on entire denominations. When Catholics and Protestants start throwing shite at each other, I just kinda laugh. Both groups have some very black eyes in their past. I try not to paint with a broad brush though.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:16 am to Uga Alum
quote:
How is it possible that some Protestant churches support gay
marriage?
How is it possible that some Heretic churches support gay marriage?
FIFY
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:17 am to RFK
quote:
She cares for the church and the congregation and you can see that. If we really want to get at the root of God’s teachings, I think she represents what we were taught as children. To love each other and treat everyone with respect.
Yep. It’s not hard. Being a Christian does not mean being a by-the-book rule follower and if that’s all you are and have no compassion then you’ve missed it. I don’t cheerlead for the way they choose to live, but I respect them as people. “Love one another other” just isn’t edgy enough, though.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:18 am to FooManChoo
But Augustine himself did not believe in sola scriptura or sola fide. And the New Testament was written in the first century but not finalized until the 4th century.
Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Darby and John Wesley did not know the early church fathers or the apostles.
Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Darby and John Wesley did not know the early church fathers or the apostles.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:20 am to JiminyCricket
I’m not Catholic. I disagree with Catholics on several things. Don’t believe in purgatory or the supremacy of the Pope. I don’t believe in the filioque. I’m Greek Orthodox.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:20 am to RFK
quote:
I am also certain she is a lesbian but she doesn’t make it an issue and I respect that.
Regardless of how she acts or what others feel, it is an issue. On both accounts.
quote:
I think she represents what we were taught as children.
but definitely not what God teaches.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:24 am to Uga Alum
Pandering to some weirdo with the loudest mouth, just as the norms sit on their hands and do nothing. This has been typical for the last 50 years. Good people doing nothing.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:28 am to Uga Alum
quote:
I’m not Catholic. I disagree with Catholics on several things. Don’t believe in purgatory or the supremacy of the Pope. I don’t believe in the filioque. I’m Greek Orthodox.
Sorry if I was unclear, I didn't mean that last post to point at you directly, it was more of a general overview of the big C church.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:31 am to 6R12
quote:
Good people doing nothing.
What should they be doing?
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:31 am to JimEverett
quote:
I saw some of Jeremiah Wright's sermons - church of christ.
Of note here is that he is a leader of the "United Church of Christ," a denomination that does not seek to return to teachings, practice, and doctrine taught and observed by first century Christians as I understand most congregations who wear the name "church of Christ" strive to observe.
From their own website:
quote:
The United Church of Christ is a socially liberal mainline Protestant Christian denomination based in the United States, with historical and confessional roots in the Congregational, Restorationist, Continental Reformed, and Lutheran traditions, and with approximately 4,600 churches and 712,000 members.
This is a denomination that is very different from the churches of Christ whose independently overseen congregations you'll see throughout the country who happen to be among the most scripturally conservative folks you'll likely ever meet.
This post was edited on 5/19/25 at 11:01 am
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:32 am to the808bass
quote:
A Christian artist made some proclamation about Scripture 12 or so years ago. I sent him a DM and said you won’t be a believer in 10 years. You can now watch him extol the benefits of ayahuasca and mushrooms. Rob Bell was another easy prediction. I’ve got a countdown clock on a couple other fellas.
ditto.
Bell, you could smell from a mile away. Joshua Harris was a bit more of a surprise if you grew up in late 90s/early 00s evangelical world.
Even though he's persona non grata to some, I always thought Driscoll was a bit of an a-hole, but also the type to endure.
Zuby (black English dude that identified as woman to break a weightlifting record) recently had on John Cooper for a podcast and I really had to rock my brain when I heard the interview start and then i remembered that he was the lead singer of Skillet and still going strong.
they had a long conversation about what made so many of those people in that generation walk away.
TL;DR they wanted Jesus for his stuff.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:36 am to RohanGonzales
Most of you
don’t know the truth or actual history of the Episcopal Church. It was moot really part of the Protestant Reformation, for example. It was separate and apart from Martin Luther’s movement. It largely maintained the theology and certainly the liturgy of the Universal Catholic Church. The modern day Episcopal hierarchy does not reflect the church of my youth, which was pretty traditional. And today, individual Episcopal congregations have latitude and can vary, sometimes significantly, depending upon the issue.
don’t know the truth or actual history of the Episcopal Church. It was moot really part of the Protestant Reformation, for example. It was separate and apart from Martin Luther’s movement. It largely maintained the theology and certainly the liturgy of the Universal Catholic Church. The modern day Episcopal hierarchy does not reflect the church of my youth, which was pretty traditional. And today, individual Episcopal congregations have latitude and can vary, sometimes significantly, depending upon the issue.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:44 am to JimEverett
You do understand the Church of Christ is not the denomination Jeremiah Wright belongs to? Also, the Disciples of Christ have been left wing kooks since the 1950’s
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:44 am to Nix to Twillie
quote:
It’s not hard. Being a Christian does not mean being a by-the-book rule follower and if that’s all you are and have no compassion then you’ve missed it. I don’t cheerlead for the way they choose to live, but I respect them as people. “Love one another other” just isn’t edgy enough, though.
I believe you are conflating two distinct groups: those within the Church, believers in Christ, and those outside the Church, nonbelievers. Scripture teaches us to differentiate how we interact with each.
Within the body of believers, our love must also include correction and accountability. As Jesus instructs, “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you” (Matthew 18:15). Furthermore, “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17). Our love for fellow Christians must be steadfast, guiding each other toward righteousness as a parent would guide their child.
Yet, there are times when stronger measures are necessary. Paul instructs us clearly in 1 Corinthians 5:11, “But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.”
This means that when a so-called brother or sister in Christ persists in open, unrepentant sin, we are commanded to separate ourselves from them. This is not done out of hatred, but out of love for the purity of the Church and the hope that such discipline will lead to repentance. As Paul also says, “Expel the wicked person from among you”, to maintain holiness within the body and prevent sin from corrupting the whole community.
The rules and standards within the Church are designed to maintain holiness and protect the integrity of our witness. “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden”. We must guard that light, ensuring it remains untainted so that nonbelievers see Christ through us.
To those outside the Church, we are called to be respectful and kind, showing neighborly love. As Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself”. This reflects the grace and compassion of Christ, even toward those who do not share our faith.
Those outside the Church live according to the world’s standards, and we must acknowledge that difference. Paul reminds us, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?”
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:56 am to StringedInstruments
You bring up some good points. I believe in the Bible but also guided by the Holy Spirit with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12-13).
Certainly God has used women to further the Kingdom. They have roles, as do men. You mention Phoebe and Junia who are mentioned as ones to be greeted. Phoebe (a succourer) provided for Paul and is believed to have delievered his letters (but nothing is written of her again in the New Testament). Junia is greeted as a fellow prisoner and of note among the apostles. Some argue she did more, but nothing more is written about her in the New Testament. Nothing is written of these women (while they certainly were important) that shows them as having authority over men.
Priscilla and Aquila partnered to teach Apollo about God since he only knew of John the Baptist's understanding. This was probably done in private and again, doesn't show Priscilla as having biblical authority over a man.
When the bible states something specifically, such as in 1 Timothy 2:12, we should listen. When the same idea is brought up again in a different part of the Bible by a different author (as it is in 1 Corinthians 14:34) I think God is making a point.
If the Bible goes on to mention qualifiers for a position (husband of one wife) in one part (1 Timothy 3:2) and again states that in another part by a different author (Titus 1:6), then it's pretty clear.
There are roles for both men and women, I don't believe that the role of the pastor or one having biblical authority belongs to women.
Certainly God has used women to further the Kingdom. They have roles, as do men. You mention Phoebe and Junia who are mentioned as ones to be greeted. Phoebe (a succourer) provided for Paul and is believed to have delievered his letters (but nothing is written of her again in the New Testament). Junia is greeted as a fellow prisoner and of note among the apostles. Some argue she did more, but nothing more is written about her in the New Testament. Nothing is written of these women (while they certainly were important) that shows them as having authority over men.
Priscilla and Aquila partnered to teach Apollo about God since he only knew of John the Baptist's understanding. This was probably done in private and again, doesn't show Priscilla as having biblical authority over a man.
When the bible states something specifically, such as in 1 Timothy 2:12, we should listen. When the same idea is brought up again in a different part of the Bible by a different author (as it is in 1 Corinthians 14:34) I think God is making a point.
If the Bible goes on to mention qualifiers for a position (husband of one wife) in one part (1 Timothy 3:2) and again states that in another part by a different author (Titus 1:6), then it's pretty clear.
There are roles for both men and women, I don't believe that the role of the pastor or one having biblical authority belongs to women.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:56 am to Uga Alum
quote:Yes, Jesus is with us in the Eucharist, but spiritually so. His body is in Heaven and cannot be divided, so His body is not in the bread or blood in the wine. Jesus is really present, but not physically present.
Partaking of him spiritually? You mean the Eucharist?
quote:Well that's just an assumption made by pushing modern views back into history. The ECFs used the word "flesh" a lot in speaking of Christ when His literal flesh wasn't being described. The Didache speaks of life through the spiritual food and drink of Christ, and ECFs like Cyprian, Justin Martyr, and Athanasius make comments dispelling the notion of transubstantiation or even a real bodily presence in the Eucharist. The fact of the matter is that there is a mixture of beliefs and teachings from the ECFs that don't fit neatly into any particular view.
None of the early Church fathers believed that the Eucharist merely represented the body and blood of Christ. They all thought that there was a transformation. Again, these are the men that knew the apostles.
quote:Again, the Reformers and Puritans defending these doctrines (they didn't teach the Eucharist was a "mere representation", though, but a real spiritual presence in the elements) used the ECFs and theologians from throughout history to support their views. Those who claim that the ECFs believed exactly what the RCC teaches today, or that the Reformers were creating novel doctrines simply don't know their history.
As far as I know, the idea that the Eucharist was a mere representation, as well as sola scriptura, and sola fide, are ideas that developed randomly after 1500 years of Christianity.
Posted on 5/19/25 at 9:58 am to Rip Torn
quote:
You do understand the Church of Christ is not the denomination Jeremiah Wright belongs to?
It’s very easy for people to confuse the United Church of Christ for the Church of Christ if all they see is a name. The similarities end there.
Page 8 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News