- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Interesting how "Evangelicals" are separating themselves from "Protestants".
Posted on 10/13/25 at 2:31 pm to GumboPot
Posted on 10/13/25 at 2:31 pm to GumboPot
quote:The short answer is that they are not abiding by Scripture. The next chapter has the qualifications for elders (pastors, ruling and teaching), and it is clear that the qualifications are for men only. Likewise in Titus 1 and all other passages that speak to the leaders of the church.
How do sola scriptura Protestants get past 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and Protestant female pastors:
While I don’t like to appeal to history (because Scripture alone is the infallible rule for faith and life), there has been no deviation in the historical record that women alone are to be the spiritual leaders; from the divide between east and west, to Protestant and Catholic. It has only been in the last century that that has been challenged, and only based on secular principles of egalitarianism rather than biblical arguments.
1
Posted on 10/13/25 at 2:52 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The short answer is that they are not abiding by Scripture. The next chapter has the qualifications for elders (pastors, ruling and teaching), and it is clear that the qualifications are for men only. Likewise in Titus 1 and all other passages that speak to the leaders of the church.
Posted on 10/13/25 at 2:53 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
Where does it say OK for priests to violate young boys?
That's a mortal sin.
Posted on 10/13/25 at 4:21 pm to GumboPot
Stumbled upon this today, and thought I’d share what is most important in all of this…true biblical salvation and assurance. This is what it looks like.
Posted on 10/13/25 at 5:54 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
Many people adopt Catholic thinking that "division" is what the Catholic Church is saving people from, which is silly. The Catholic Church is as divided as any. Don't believe me? Study the conciliarists or Carlo Vigano.
I linked an Al Mohler article explaining which differences are perfectly acceptable amongst believers and which ones aren't.
Division isn't necessarily unbiblical. Acts 15:36-41
Sure, there's division in Catholicism, but on the whole, I can pick the 5 closest Catholic churches near me & go and receive a unified message rooted in agreed upon doctrine & theology. If I do the same with 5 Protestant churches, well, I think we can agree that the results might be more, diverse, shall we say.
Also, I'm actually leaning more towards Orthodoxy at the moment, but I'm also listening to where I feel God is drawing me & by no means have ruled out finding a Protestant church. But, I want to find a church home that I can go to & find nourishment, support & community, and a home. I especially want to find a church home to get baptized. I've been baptized in the past, but what I experienced on Aug 29th of this year, well, it honestly feels like the first time I've truly been saved.
I'll go back & check out sources you've mentioned. I haven't been following this thread religiously...
quote:
I've listed them numerous times. Again, many Catholic/EO practices are fine as long as it's acknowledged that they are not necessary for salvation and are not in scripture but that's not the church's position.
I fully agree and that's across all branches of Christianity. However, after growing up in Protestantism, my opinion that Sola Scriptura having been a mistake has only grown with time, but that's just my opinion.
quote:
lol. I studied the Patristics like all seminary students have. I've been citing them all throughout this discussion.
As I said, haven't been following the thread just jumping in here & there, so apologies.
quote:
Relevant to this discussion, this is a good book about textual historicity and the problems with the apochrypha, gnostic works etc
Yes, I still have questions/reservations about certain texts, however from even a cursory look into the matter it seems that the Deuterocanonical texts were quoted by both Apostles as well as early Church Fathers. And the Masoretic Hebrew text wasn't formed until decades after Christianity's founding & mass explosion throughout the region.
Still, it's one of many areas I have questions about.
quote:
If you're looking for systematic theology, Grudem is pretty standard. Erickson is incredible but a little more on the philosophical side. While they aren't polemical re: catholicism, they do compare and contrast at critical points.
I agree, Grudem is a good source especially for non-Reformed Protestants, let alone Catholic or Orthodox Christians.
As for Erickson, well, despite being described as a "Moderate Calvinist," and God only knows what THAT could be lol, I'll probably steer clear for now, not that he doesn't have good insight & knowledge for all Christians, but my moral revulsion to Calvinism is so strong that, solely to prevent it becoming a stumbling block, I'll stay away for now.
quote:
If you're interested in the origins of Christianity, you'll be hard pressed to find an author of the stature of NT Wright. You may not agree with his take on justification but his works are of the highest scholarly rank
I actually thoroughly enjoy NT Wright.
quote:
If you do explore any of that, please return and let's discuss. I live for those conversations.
I could go on for days though. Are there any particular topics you're interested in? Textual reliability, philosophy, history, apologetics, sociology/psychology, science?
Apologies for the late response, life is particularly chaotic right now. Philosophy & history are key interests, I'm not really concerned with textual reliability at the moment, and I spent years reading apologetics, both as a Christian & as an Atheist, however, as far as my spiritual walk & growth I don't feel like that's an area that I'm being called to dive into atm.
Sociology, depends on the context & how you're approaching it, although certainly not high up on my list. Psychology, yes, given my personal life experience & background in Psychology that remains an interest. Science is an interest as well, although one on the backburner & probably something I'll return to in the future. I will say that I'm of the opinion that science, while not immune from human corruption just as any other field isn't, I do believe it to be a tool God had in mind for Man to use to learn more about ourselves, the world, the universe, etc.
So, certainly philosophy, history, & psychology would be key interests from that list.
This post was edited on 10/13/25 at 5:56 pm
Posted on 10/16/25 at 2:03 pm to somethingdifferent
I thought this was worth correcting you.
So where’s what is said in Matthew 5.
So you’re kind of right - Jesus didn’t say dot or iota. Firstly it’s because Jesus is a fictional, non-historical character in the mythology of a sect of Jews. Secondly, if he did exist, he most likely would have been talking in Aramaic, not Greek.
According to Matthew 5 however, Jesus does say “dot” and “iota” with respect to not only major aspects of the Torah - but every single tiny seemingly insignificant aspect and requirement of the Torah. What he said is that every single aspect of the Torah is still valid until what? What exactly? What is it that ends the Torah.
Last I checked the firmament didn’t come crashing down yet to return the earth to its primordial state flooding the earth with the sky ocean. Heaven is still there, earth is still here.
Let’s read from Matthew and see why you are in error.
Do you understand the context? The author of Matthew is rebuking Pauline theology that the law was useless and no longer applied to Jews who accepted Christ. Matthew has Jesus saying whoever relaxed any part of the Law is not being righteous. The Pharisees follow every dot and iota. So must Christians. But Christians need to do it better than the Pharisees? How is that possible? It’s that Christians need to not just follow every dot and iota in legal manner, but also do it in mind and spirit.
All we have to do it look at the next verses. Sure the law is do not commit murder. How must Christians be even more righteous? Don’t just not murder, but don’t even get angry.
Don’t just not commit adultery, but don’t even look at a woman and be like “I’d bang her.”
It goes on and on. Jesus compare the Pharisees perfectly following the Law, but cranks it up a notch saying they have to not only follow every dot and iota in practice externally, but also go above and beyond and do better internally in their hearts.
In Matthew 23:23 Jesus does call the Pharisees hypocrites, but it’s because they are following every dot and iota of the law externally for man, but they have no intent that they are doing it only for God. Jesus never says the Pharisees weren’t righteous at keeping the law - it’s precisely the opposite, but Jesus doesn’t like the Pharisees’ reasons for following the Law.
You’ve argued that you think Jesus didn’t think the Pharisees to be righteous in following the Law. It wouldn’t make any sense if Jesus thought the Pharisees sucked at following the Torah, and told his followers they had to be better than people who sucked. On the contrary, Jesus was saying the Pharisees were good at following the letter of the Law but that his followers had to be even better than that.
Until heaven and earth pass away, of course.
quote:
He doesn't say "dot or iota" regarding the keeping of the law.
So where’s what is said in Matthew 5.
quote:
17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
So you’re kind of right - Jesus didn’t say dot or iota. Firstly it’s because Jesus is a fictional, non-historical character in the mythology of a sect of Jews. Secondly, if he did exist, he most likely would have been talking in Aramaic, not Greek.
According to Matthew 5 however, Jesus does say “dot” and “iota” with respect to not only major aspects of the Torah - but every single tiny seemingly insignificant aspect and requirement of the Torah. What he said is that every single aspect of the Torah is still valid until what? What exactly? What is it that ends the Torah.
quote:
until heaven and earth pass away
Last I checked the firmament didn’t come crashing down yet to return the earth to its primordial state flooding the earth with the sky ocean. Heaven is still there, earth is still here.
quote:
As for the comment about the Pharisees specifically, yes. But he was clear on multiple occasions that their righteousness was a pretty low bar because their self righteousness was based on legalism.
Let’s read from Matthew and see why you are in error.
quote:
19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Do you understand the context? The author of Matthew is rebuking Pauline theology that the law was useless and no longer applied to Jews who accepted Christ. Matthew has Jesus saying whoever relaxed any part of the Law is not being righteous. The Pharisees follow every dot and iota. So must Christians. But Christians need to do it better than the Pharisees? How is that possible? It’s that Christians need to not just follow every dot and iota in legal manner, but also do it in mind and spirit.
All we have to do it look at the next verses. Sure the law is do not commit murder. How must Christians be even more righteous? Don’t just not murder, but don’t even get angry.
quote:
21“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’
22But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
Don’t just not commit adultery, but don’t even look at a woman and be like “I’d bang her.”
quote:
27“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
It goes on and on. Jesus compare the Pharisees perfectly following the Law, but cranks it up a notch saying they have to not only follow every dot and iota in practice externally, but also go above and beyond and do better internally in their hearts.
In Matthew 23:23 Jesus does call the Pharisees hypocrites, but it’s because they are following every dot and iota of the law externally for man, but they have no intent that they are doing it only for God. Jesus never says the Pharisees weren’t righteous at keeping the law - it’s precisely the opposite, but Jesus doesn’t like the Pharisees’ reasons for following the Law.
You’ve argued that you think Jesus didn’t think the Pharisees to be righteous in following the Law. It wouldn’t make any sense if Jesus thought the Pharisees sucked at following the Torah, and told his followers they had to be better than people who sucked. On the contrary, Jesus was saying the Pharisees were good at following the letter of the Law but that his followers had to be even better than that.
Until heaven and earth pass away, of course.
Page 33 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News