- 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: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians
Posted on 7/8/26 at 9:30 pm to Champagne
Posted on 7/8/26 at 9:30 pm to Champagne
quote:
Pope Foo and the Pope of Rome are both saying the exact same thing about their interpretations of Scripture. EXACT same thing. That's why you are Pope Foo.
I 100% agree with you on this Champagne, but I prefer you to use my favored nickname for him “FooLaneCraig”. I tried out the Pope Foo things and it doesn’t sound smooth. Maybe Popemanchoo might be worth considering too.
0
Posted on 7/8/26 at 10:00 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
They’re not Christians.
Posted on 7/8/26 at 11:10 pm to Champagne
quote:You really do argue in bad faith, don’t you?
Thanks. I finally got you to admit that your preaching around here is not secured from error, that is to say - you admit that your preaching here could be erroneous and wrong.
I already said that I don’t believe what I say is infallible, but only as it comports with God’s infallible teaching. I admitted already that I could believe error, but the Bible cannot teach error.
That position is both historical Protestant doctrine as well as biblical doctrine, since only God’s Word is infallible. This isn’t a gotcha.
What I’m trying to highlight for you is the absurdity of the RCC position of implicit faith, because it assumes fallible men are teaching and speaking infallibly outside of the apostolic and prophetic ministry that ended 2,000 years ago.
quote:Not secured from error doesn’t mean I assume what I’m teaching is wrong.
Why do you spend so much time preaching on Tigerdroppings Political Talk when you know that what you preach is not secured from error by the Holy Spirit and may very well be erroneous and wrong.
This is a discussion forum, so I have discussions. I have studied the Scriptures for decades and believe with confidence that what I believe is actually true and comports with what God’s infallible Word teaches.
It’s why always invite you to discuss your objections to my beliefs by arguing from the Scriptures. If I am wrong, you must demonstrate it from God’s Word, not from the fallible men you implicitly trust.
quote:You are correct. I have no problem saying that because it is the Bible alone that is infallible. However, because the Westminster standards are faithful summaries of what the Bible teaches, I have full confidence that they teach the truth. I have studied those standards and compared them to the Bible and it matches up.
Is the Westminster Short Confessional secured from error by the Holy Spirit? In other words, is that document and the men who wrote it Infallible? No, of course not. The Westminster Short Confessional may be erroneous and wrong.
Even so, I hold out the possibility that they could be in error somewhere, and therefore can be reformed by the Bible. There is no such hope for Rome’s dogmatic teachings, because they are based on the authority of Rome, herself, rather than the authority of God’s Word.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:10 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I hold out the possibility that they could be in error somewhere,
Good. I'm glad that you realize that your preaching and the preaching of the Westminster Confession authors "could be in error". That's why I stand by my personal position that you, and they, are indeed "in error."
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:14 am to FooManChoo
quote:
they are based on the authority of Rome, herself, rather than the authority of God’s Word.
Quite erroneous and wrong again.
The RCC is based on the authority of Jesus Christ Himself. In the Holy Bible itself, Jesus Christ is declared to be "God's Word." Jesus Christ Himself is The Word of God. That is clearly in the Bible.
The RCC follows the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, and is guided by the Holy Spirit in this endeavor.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 10:55 am to Champagne
quote:You can't just assert that I and they are "in error", but you should prove it, and that's the point of admitting fallibility outside of the Bible. The Bible alone is infallible, and every person--including you, me, and the Pope--needs to have their understanding checked by Scripture, and reformed by it when we are out of alignment.
Good. I'm glad that you realize that your preaching and the preaching of the Westminster Confession authors "could be in error". That's why I stand by my personal position that you, and they, are indeed "in error."
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:03 am to FooManChoo
So how does a person stay following this crap?
Welp there you have it. Jesus didn't come back because Smith didn't live long enough.
quote:
In February 1835, Smith stated during a meeting that God had told him Christ would return within 56 years (which would be 1891). He later recorded a similar note in Doctrine and Covenants Section 130, stating that if he lived to be 85 years old, he would see the face of the Son of Man.
quote:
The Church points to the wording in Section 130, which says "if" he lived to be 85. Because he did not live that long, they argue the prophecy was conditional upon his survival.
Welp there you have it. Jesus didn't come back because Smith didn't live long enough.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:07 am to FooManChoo
Last post was just responding to the last poster, but this is for you Foo.
You fake Christians are funny as frick.
quote:
Earthly governments, political parties, and leaders are temporary human institutions, and treating them as saviors or putting ultimate faith in them constitutes a form of idolatry.
You fake Christians are funny as frick.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:20 am to Champagne
quote:Jesus is the Word of God incarnate, but the Bible is the record of God's Word (revelation) given to His people.
The RCC is based on the authority of Jesus Christ Himself. In the Holy Bible itself, Jesus Christ is declared to be "God's Word." Jesus Christ Himself is The Word of God. That is clearly in the Bible.
The issue isn't whether or not the RCC claims authority derived from Christ, but what level or scope of authority that she claims. The elders of the Presbyterian denominations also act on the authority of Jesus Christ, however they do not claim infallibility in their exercise of that authority. That's the difference here: Rome teaches that she is infallible in her authority when certain conditions are met, and that goes beyond what the Scriptures teach.
quote:Apparently the Pope is only truly guided by the Spirit in a few instances due to only speaking ex-cathedra a few times, right?
The RCC follows the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, and is guided by the Holy Spirit in this endeavor.
The Magisterium, however, claims to be constantly guided by the Spirit, so that it, itself, is infallible. However, it cannot even list the number of times it has spoken infallibly, and sometimes it has spoken infallibly only after the fact, even years and centuries later, so that the RC faithful cannot know if the teaching that is being taught today in the ordinary magisterium is actually really Spirit-led, as the Church may change her mind or require full assent later on.
No matter how, the RCC goes beyond what the Scriptures teach by placing an infallible authority on humans outside of prophetic and apostolic authority.
This post was edited on 7/10/26 at 11:41 am
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:22 am to dgnx6
quote:I think most Mormons don't actually know the history of their religion, and especially the words and writings of their prophets.
So how does a person stay following this crap?
A lot of neo-Mormons, or whatever they are calling themselves these days, actually downplay their former prophets and founders. Sounds like a smart strategy for them, except it leads to contradictions in their own teachings and makes it harder to know what to actually believe.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 11:24 am to dgnx6
quote:Can you elaborate on your criticism?quote:You fake Christians are funny as frick.
Earthly governments, political parties, and leaders are temporary human institutions, and treating them as saviors or putting ultimate faith in them constitutes a form of idolatry.
I don't consider myself a "fake" Christian at all, but a follower of Christ. I'm a sinner, but I'm not fake. I'm curious why you would say this.
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:13 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Jesus is the Word of God incarnate, but the Bible is the record of God's Word (revelation) given to His people.
Which came first? Jesus Christ as the Word of God or the Bible?
I think people were active in Christ's Church and following the Word of God before the New Testament was written.
Also, the Apostles themselves were very active in Christ's Church before the New Testament was written. That ended when they died, and by that time, successors to the Apostles replaced them and were active in Christ's Church.
All this was guided by the Holy Spirit.
I mean - Wasn't it? If not, then - When exactly did the Holy Spirit stop guiding Christ's Church?
This post was edited on 7/9/26 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 7/9/26 at 3:29 pm to AUIH1
thats mighty christian of you
Posted on 7/9/26 at 5:00 pm to Shiftyplus1
quote:
Who gives a shite? fricking weird Children of the Corn looking cult motherfrickers
Posted on 7/10/26 at 11:10 am to Champagne
quote:Chronologically, Jesus was first, since He was before anything (including the written Bible) was created.
Which came first? Jesus Christ as the Word of God or the Bible?
That's irrelevant to what I'm arguing, though.
quote:They were. They used the Old Testament and tested the words of the Apostles by it, like the Bereans did.
I think people were active in Christ's Church and following the Word of God before the New Testament was written.
The question isn't whether or not God's revelation existed orally before it was written down, because of course it did, and no one is disputing that. The question is what the Church has today as the abiding, infallible, and authoritative revelation?
The oral tradition of Rome is not God-breathed, and if it were, we couldn't tell, because we would have to do the same thing that Rome criticizes Protestants of doing, which is that we would have to appeal to the Church to believe that the Church teaches rightly (as opposed to appealing to the Bible).
There is much oral tradition that Rome claims was passed down from the apostles but doesn't seem to exist in history, either in the writings of the ECFs, or the practices that were recorded.
However, what the ECFs and the divines throughout the years routinely used to define and defend orthodoxy is the Word of God as recorded in the Scriptures. We know what that is, and we know that it doesn't change. For the majority of the biblical text, and for all of the New Testament, there is no dispute between Protestants and Catholics. What is in dispute is what the "true Church" is, because Rome has created binding traditions that are outside of the Bible, which we have to assume the Magisterium is correct to the same degree (and even more so) than the Bible.
quote:Again, no one disputes that the apostles were active in the Church until they died. What is in dispute is the nature of their successive authority. The Scriptures do not demonstrate that there were more apostles after John died, or that more should be expected. Who, then, were their successors? The elders/overseers/bishops that they put in place in every congregation. Did those elders/overseers/bishops have the same apostolic authority and gifting? No, because the apostle was a unique office with unique authority and unique gifting. However, the elders/overseers/bishops had authority from Christ to judge according to the Word of God, as real authorities, but not infallible authorities.
Also, the Apostles themselves were very active in Christ's Church before the New Testament was written. That ended when they died, and by that time, successors to the Apostles replaced them and were active in Christ's Church.
quote:The Spirit most certainly guides the Church as the helper that Jesus sent, but that doesn't mean the Spirit moves individuals to create new and infallible doctrine. The Spirit illumines the understanding of Christians to conform them to the truth of the Scriptures. The way you're describing the work of the Spirit in Catholicism is akin to new revelation, as if the apostles are still teaching new doctrine for the Church to receive. The prophets and apostles were the foundation of the Church with Christ as its corner stone. What we are building is on a foundation already laid. There is no new revelation.
All this was guided by the Holy Spirit.
quote:Again, it's not that the Spirit doesn't guide, but the issue is how He guides it. You clearly believe the Spirit guides through new revelation. I don't think that's how He guides us at all, but He guides through the written Word of God that He inspired the prophets and apostles to write and preserve for us.
I mean - Wasn't it? If not, then - When exactly did the Holy Spirit stop guiding Christ's Church?
Posted on 7/10/26 at 2:58 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You clearly believe the Spirit guides through new revelation
Nope. Completely wrong and erroneous.
OK, we are done here. Good talk. I have exhausted this convo with you and I see no useful purpose in continuing this convo.
You did help me further refine my own understanding of things, so, thanks for helping with that.
This post was edited on 7/10/26 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 7/11/26 at 9:34 am to Champagne
quote:If a doctrine is not found in the Bible, and is not found and practiced in early church history, then when it comes about many centuries later in time and is claimed to be something Christians must assent to as an infallible, Holy Spirit-guided teaching, then that sounds like new revelation to me.
Nope. Completely wrong and erroneous.
Deny it all you like, but the logic is there.
quote:There is plenty more that you can say. I’ve made several arguments and made several assertions that you haven’t responded to.
OK, we are done here. Good talk. I have exhausted this convo with you and I see no useful purpose in continuing this convo.
I’ll see you in the next thread where you attempt to start an argument with me by misapplying the Bible while calling me “Pope”, or some other name that doesn’t fit.
quote:That's progress, then
You did help me further refine my own understanding of things, so, thanks for helping with that.
Posted on 7/13/26 at 7:29 am to FooManChoo
quote:
If a doctrine is not found in the Bible, and is not found and practiced in early church history, then when it comes about many centuries later in time and is claimed to be something Christians must assent to as an infallible, Holy Spirit-guided teaching, then that sounds like new revelation to me.
A doctrine like the holy trinity is a new revelation centuries later by your definition. It isn’t in the bible, and was formed in three basic stages:
1. Council of Nicaea - Jesus as being fully divine and uncreated became doctrine
2. Council of Constantinople- Holy Spirit being a person within a trinity of persons all being fully god and co-eternal became doctrine
3. Council of Chalcedon - the Hypostatic union of Jesus being 100% God while also being 100% man was created and became doctrine
Deny it all you like (and I know you will) but this is Christianity 101 for dummies level basic knowledge. The Orthodox holy trinity was created 4 centuries after “Jesus” and formalized as we know it in the 5th century. So deny that and tell us all how much of a hypocrite you are.
Posted on 7/13/26 at 7:40 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:It’s all throughout the Bible, OT and NT. The word “Trinity” is not there but the concept of one God in three persons is all over Scripture.
A doctrine like the holy trinity is a new revelation centuries later by your definition. It isn’t in the bible, and was formed in three basic stages
Therefore, that is not an example of what I was talking about.
Posted on 7/13/26 at 7:57 am to FooManChoo
quote:
It’s all throughout the Bible, OT and NT. The word “Trinity” is not there but the concept of one God in three persons is all over Scripture.
It isn’t anywhere in the bible, and if it was, you’d have quoted it. And don’t quote the Johannine Comma as that was a late 4th century Latin insertion. No, you take the totality of the Protestant Bible with deleted books and you interpret the Trinity from that and you believe your interpretation is infallible so that’s how you justify believing it. In reality you inherited those dogmas and doctrines from your parents who inherited them from John Calvin who inherited them from 5th century Catholicism which used human tradition to create dogmas.
FooLaneCraig loves him some human tradition and papal infallibility.
Page 31 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News