- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: Dispensationalism is a Heresy
Posted on 8/19/25 at 7:16 pm to SoWhat
Posted on 8/19/25 at 7:16 pm to SoWhat
quote:
Good on your church for not subscribing to it. I grew up in what some in the south would call, pew jumping. I think we went to every version of protestant denomination. And there was always some level of Catholicism bashing. Whether from the pulpit to Sunday lunch.
Other than Catholics drinking(which was a silly criticism) my pastor growing up never once mentioned Catholicism. I was under the impression that Catholics were akin to a different denomination. I attended two different Southern Baptist Churches over my first 20 years of life.
I heard some criticisms later as an adult when I became more interested in theology. I still think its silly to consider Orthodox or Catholics to not be Christian
1
Posted on 8/19/25 at 7:36 pm to scottydoesntknow
The biggest issue between Catholics and Protestants are in how salvation is obtained.
Protestants believe faith alone.
Catholics believe faith plus works (like every other Christian cult)
There are also the government functions of the Catholic Church that is not Biblical like the priesthood. Many theological differences like Peter being the rock when clearly in scripture that Jesus is the Rock. Mary’s immaculate conception. Which is not Biblical nor can Mary or any Saint be an intercession to the Lord. That is clearly replacing Jesus. Confession of sins to priest and many other fallacies that the RCC teaches.
Go figure men with power at the Council of Trent to give themselves more power over the people. No different than the Pharisees.
That’s why I mentioned earlier in the tread that the printing press was the exposure of the RCC. The Bible being mass produced brought the true Church out of the dark ages.
Protestants believe faith alone.
Catholics believe faith plus works (like every other Christian cult)
There are also the government functions of the Catholic Church that is not Biblical like the priesthood. Many theological differences like Peter being the rock when clearly in scripture that Jesus is the Rock. Mary’s immaculate conception. Which is not Biblical nor can Mary or any Saint be an intercession to the Lord. That is clearly replacing Jesus. Confession of sins to priest and many other fallacies that the RCC teaches.
Go figure men with power at the Council of Trent to give themselves more power over the people. No different than the Pharisees.
That’s why I mentioned earlier in the tread that the printing press was the exposure of the RCC. The Bible being mass produced brought the true Church out of the dark ages.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 7:45 pm to Champagne
Respectfully, conceding much that you have posted respecting Cephas, you must admit it’s a long way from that day to where we are today. An infallible Pope (when he speaks from his Pontifical throne) who is THE head of Christ’s Church on earth and Christ’s Vicar.
I freely acknowledge he is the Bishop of Rome. The rest is less clear to me.
While Peter’s strong personality and leadership qualities are evident in the gospels and Acts, he disappears from Acts after a time.
It also seems as though early on James was the Head of the Church in Jerusalem. Not Peter. Peter had some failures in leadership respecting his hypocrisy towards Gentiles when Jewish legalists were present to the extent Paul openly and publicly rebuked him.
And I’m not sure that there is any hard evidence Peter made it to Rome.
Sadly these traditions have influenced Rome to assume and argue for itself an unreasonable but absolute primacy over the Church’s other principal Christian cities.
One can lay at Rome’s feet (or at least at the feet of couple of Spanish Bishops) the split between East and West over a clause the East probably has the better argument.
Since then pretty much the ideal of Church Councils deciding major aspects of faith and practice withered. Rome does what it wants, the Eastern Churches do what they want, the English Anglicans do what they want, and so on. Say what you will you can’t lay all the divisions within the Church on the Reformers or the Reformation.
Please know I’m not targeting you or your beliefs personally. Your effective presentations provided me a way to express my opinion.
Certainly you and I are on the same team as Jesus Christ is our great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls.
I freely acknowledge he is the Bishop of Rome. The rest is less clear to me.
While Peter’s strong personality and leadership qualities are evident in the gospels and Acts, he disappears from Acts after a time.
It also seems as though early on James was the Head of the Church in Jerusalem. Not Peter. Peter had some failures in leadership respecting his hypocrisy towards Gentiles when Jewish legalists were present to the extent Paul openly and publicly rebuked him.
And I’m not sure that there is any hard evidence Peter made it to Rome.
Sadly these traditions have influenced Rome to assume and argue for itself an unreasonable but absolute primacy over the Church’s other principal Christian cities.
One can lay at Rome’s feet (or at least at the feet of couple of Spanish Bishops) the split between East and West over a clause the East probably has the better argument.
Since then pretty much the ideal of Church Councils deciding major aspects of faith and practice withered. Rome does what it wants, the Eastern Churches do what they want, the English Anglicans do what they want, and so on. Say what you will you can’t lay all the divisions within the Church on the Reformers or the Reformation.
Please know I’m not targeting you or your beliefs personally. Your effective presentations provided me a way to express my opinion.
Certainly you and I are on the same team as Jesus Christ is our great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 8:03 pm to Penrod
quote:
I unequivocally agree that society would be better if a lot more women stayed at home with their children. I think the women, and their husbands would be happier too.
Then you do not agree with the feminists.
Not sure why you didn't just say that all the way back then.
Maybe it's because you're such an alpha male.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 8:25 pm to Champagne
quote:What’s false about what I said? I said there was disagreement on what the “rock” was that Jesus would build His Church on. I even gave examples of those who held to competing interpretations.
I also have no problem with your incorrect statement that the Early Church was unsure how to interpret Christ calling Peter "Kepha" or the Rock.
The purpose of doing that was to demonstrate that the primary verse that Rome appeals to for the dogmas concerning the papacy today don’t have unanimous agreement even in the church fathers.
Since so much rests on that verse, and there isn’t even full agreement on who or what Jesus was referring to in it, it seems like an unstable foundation for such a critical dogma.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 9:01 pm to Canon951
quote:
You trust Grok and I'll just stick to my bible. My faith is in Christ alone. I've provided numerous scriptures verifying that Jesus is the rock, cornerstone, foundation of which the entire church is built upon. Not sure what else can be said on the topic.
The Bible refers to God and Faith both as a Rock, as well as Simon Peter. Peter's own Faith is also a Rock. There can be more than one Rock referred to in the Bible, and, I think I've demonstrated that.
Also, keep in mind that God gave new names to people, when He sent them on missions that were far reaching for His purposes - God renamed Abram to Abraham. God renamed Jacob to Israel. God renamed Simon bar Jonah to Peter/Kephas. God intended all three to fulfill very important missions in Salvation history. God gave to Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
This is what Catholics believe. If you have a different interpretation of the Holy Bible, I respect your opinion, even though I believe you are wrong.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 9:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I said there was disagreement on what the “rock” was that Jesus would build His Church on. I even gave examples of those who held to competing interpretations.
There was no disagreement until the early 1500s A.D. when the Protestant Reformers explicitly denied what Christ said about Peter.
When Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter, we Catholics believe that this is a very significant event in Salvation History indicating that Peter is the Rock on which Christ built his Church. Peter is not the only "Rock" in the Bible, as we have seen and as some of the Early Church Fathers pointed out.
You may form your own opinion on how to interpret the Bible. I'm simply explaining what the Catholic Catechism says. I think that the Catholic interpretation makes more sense, but, it doesn't matter what I think, because the Catechism has already settled the issue for me.
Here's what St Cyril wrote about this issue: "“...by the words ‘on this rock I shall build my church’, Christ makes Peter its Pastor, literally he places Peter over it as shepherd .” (Commentary on Matthew). "
So, even though you may think you've found something different, I think that St. Cyril is clear here.
Here's a link that contains many of Ambrose of Milan's writings on the topic. Ambrose's position is more in line with the Catholic Church's. The writings are there.
LINK
Here is just one of Ambrose of Milan's quotes
" “[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” ( Exposition of the Christian Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]). "
So, I'm not sure why you have your opinion that this issue was a contentious issue in Christianity from the earliest years of the Church. History is clear that the first theologians who denied that Christ called Peter the Rock are the Protestant theologians who wrote their opinions in the early 1500s A.D.
I'm just here to explain my side. I respect your different opinion. You are free to interpret the Bible in any way you see fit.
I'm not going to hi-jack this thread any longer. I just wanted to express my opinion that it would be foolish for the United States of America to use The Book of Genesis as a controlling doctrine to be used to dictate this country's Mid East foreign policy.
This post was edited on 8/19/25 at 9:30 pm
Posted on 8/19/25 at 10:26 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Then you do not agree with the feminists.
Not sure why you didn't just say that all the way back then.
No matter how many times you say otherwise, it will still be true that feminism changed over the years. The original wave of feminists were looking for the right to vote and to be otherwise equal to men. I agree with those women. Recent waves of feminists are pushing for special treatment for women at the expense of men. I disagree with these women. Your assertion that feminism has not changed and was always this way is sheer idiocy and no reasonable person agrees with you.
This post was edited on 8/19/25 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 8/19/25 at 11:49 pm to Champagne
quote:And there you have it. This is the fundamental dividing line between Roman Catholics and Protestants: ultimate authority. No matter what the issue is, it always comes back to sola scriptura vs sola ecclesia.
You may form your own opinion on how to interpret the Bible. I'm simply explaining what the Catholic Catechism says. I think that the Catholic interpretation makes more sense, but, it doesn't matter what I think, because the Catechism has already settled the issue for me.
Thanks for your time, as usual.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 12:46 am to Penrod
quote:
No matter how many times you say otherwise, it will still be true that feminism changed over the years.
LOL.
That's what I thought. Thanks for finally telling the truth about what you posted.
No matter how much you claim otherwise there is nothing happening in 2025 that wasn't present in principle in the feminist writings from the 1st and early 2nd wave.
quote:
The original wave of feminists were looking for the right to vote and to be otherwise equal to men.
And dismantling the nuclear family and dispensing with all traditional Judaeo-Christian values and sexual mores, and starting with "The Second Sex"—which is universally regarded as the line of demarcation between 1st and 2nd wave feminism (which means it's as correct to call it late 1st wave as it is to call it early 2nd wave)—accepting the idea that gender is nothing but a social construct, which paved the way for the homosexual and trans movement.
It's hilarious trading posts with someone like you who obviously has no actual knowledge about this subject, yet you post like I'm the one talking out of my butthole.
Mary Wollstonecraft—arguably the very first feminist ever—was highly influenced by the French Revolution and the philosophical ideas that were getting more popular in that day, such as hedonism and moral relativism, and she sought to eliminate not just male authority but pretty much all authority, all faith, and all tradition, including all sexual and familial traditions.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott—They were the two that popularized the seances among early feminists and the thing you don't seem to understand is that this was not random. It was an action taken specifically to rebel against the broader societal traditions that feminism opposed.
To understand how much early feminism opposed all societal traditions relative to the family—not just things like the right to vote—you have to look into the MEN behind the early feminists, like Edward Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, and Percy Shelley.
Because early feminism was an exercise in private extremism and public moderation, usually with the men freely expressing the extremes (the complete abolition of the family, eliminating monogamy, etc.) and the women presenting a public face of relative moderation (the right to vote, the right for women to initiate divorce, etc.).
It was a political movement, after all.
quote:
Your assertion that feminism has not changed and was always this way is sheer idiocy and no reasonable person agrees with you.
Actually anybody that has actually read a book on the subject instead of just searching Google for a minute agrees with me.
For clarity, my claim is not that early feminists wanted rights that men did not have, or wanted rights "at the expense of men." In a cubbies-like flurry of dishonestly, you simply made that up. I have never claimed that or anything like it.
My claim is that the principles of feminism that have led to the rise of the LGBTQ movement, over 63 million human beings killed by abortion since 1973, a sky-high divorce rate and a tumbling marriage rate, the destruction of the nuclear family, 2/3 of young women in America needing mental health care, and contributing to an all-time high rate of suicide in American males were all there from 1st or early 2nd wave feminism.
And they were. You've never read any of it, so you don't know that.
I've also never claimed that feminism "never changed." In fact, I've said the opposite (using Bill Maher and his recent growing critiques of Democrats as an analogy). I've said that the principles were there from the beginning, and what has happened over time is that the outward expressions and demands have been taken further and further toward the logical conclusions of those principles and manifested as such over a period of time.
This is what happens with just about any philosophy, by the way.
I'm not sure if you have no reading comprehension or if this is a deliberate attempt on your part to try to save face. Either way, do me a favor and say anything you want about what I actually posted, but don't do this cubbies thing of making stuff up and attributing it to me.
Thanks in advance.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 1:03 am to Goforit
quote:
God chose Israel to be the head of all nations.
Luke Skywalker kissed his sister.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 3:36 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
by wackatimesthree
You are the biggest retard in a thread full of retards. Congratulations.
A thread full of arguments about who are god's chosen people and you are in here with a diatribe about gender studies and feminism.
You really flexed your knowledge of the history of early feminists and the men who influenced them. Problem is, absolutely nobody gives a frick. Now go take your crazy pills.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 4:09 am to SECSolomonGrundy
Dispensationalists thump their chest and claim they interpret literally. They will interpret literally if by doing so they support their interpretation but they will not interpret literally when to do so would destroy their interpretation. That is a bankrupt method.
The Bible is its own interpreter. When Paul says the Rapture will happen at the last trump there should be no ambiquity. All we have to do is turn to the Book of Revelation and see how God reveals the last trump.The last trump is revealed in the Book of Revelation.
Revelation 11:15 reads, "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." Yet they refuse to accept this.Why? Because the timing of the last trump in Revelation 11:15 destroys their interpretation of the so-called Pretribulation Rapture.
The Bible is its own interpreter. When Paul says the Rapture will happen at the last trump there should be no ambiquity. All we have to do is turn to the Book of Revelation and see how God reveals the last trump.The last trump is revealed in the Book of Revelation.
Revelation 11:15 reads, "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." Yet they refuse to accept this.Why? Because the timing of the last trump in Revelation 11:15 destroys their interpretation of the so-called Pretribulation Rapture.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 4:56 am to SkiUtah420
Catholicism lecturing people on heresy. Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:09 am to CorchJay
quote:
CorchJay
You're not a smart person.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:31 am to FooManChoo
quote:
And there you have it. This is the fundamental dividing line between Roman Catholics and Protestants: ultimate authority. No matter what the issue is, it always comes back to sola scriptura vs sola ecclesia.
That actually is the separation between sound biblically based doctrine and any unscriptural doctrine of mankind.
I believe that if you put someone who is completely unfamiliar with man’s religions on a desert island with only a bible to form their understanding rather than the Bible used to be twisted around and conformed to a doctrine of mankind, they will inevitably come away with a very clear understanding of scripture to see Jesus as the true way, truth, and life rather than themselves being the key to unlocking the truths of God for mankind.
They will rely upon Christ alone for everything, their salvation, His finished work and perfection rather than their ridiculous works and self righteousness. They will rely upon Christ for His sanctification in their lives rather that their feeble attempts to sanctify their own lives for Him. They will inevitably build an incredibly strong relationship with God as the Holy Spirit illuminates scripture rather than men poisoning their well of understanding.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 6:32 am to FooManChoo
One last thought on this dead horse we have been beating on. The last part of the "rock" statement from Jesus is "and the gates of hell will not prevail against it"
Would the word "it" be used to refer to a person? I don't think so. "It" is obviously referring to the object being discussed which is the "rock." Can the gates of hell prevail against a person? Sure it could. Later on in Jesus' ministry, Peter, who is the "rock" according to one view, denies Christ 3 times. Jesus later restores Peter and Peter becomes a leader in the faith. But then in Galatians Paul has to confront Peter for his hypocrisy in front of "certain men from James." The point being is that Peter was a fallible man just like the rest of us. Peter and the disciples were obviously the building blocks of the early church but they were built on the foundation which is Christ.
So what is required for someone to go to heaven? The bible is clear that it's belief in Christ and once someone believes they are eternally secure. Peter's confession was proof of his belief in Christ. Jesus had just told him and the disciples present that flesh and blood did not reveal that belief to him, but his father in heaven did. Jesus wasn't elevating Peter up to some higher position. He was telling the disciples that what Peter had just confessed was going to be the foundation of the church and proof that when someone believes in Jesus for everlasting life that they are forever secure in him (i.e. safe from the gates of hell prevailing against it.)
Jude 1:3 (KJV)
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
Sorry if this is rambling this morning but just getting my first cup of coffee. Have a great day. Thanks.
Would the word "it" be used to refer to a person? I don't think so. "It" is obviously referring to the object being discussed which is the "rock." Can the gates of hell prevail against a person? Sure it could. Later on in Jesus' ministry, Peter, who is the "rock" according to one view, denies Christ 3 times. Jesus later restores Peter and Peter becomes a leader in the faith. But then in Galatians Paul has to confront Peter for his hypocrisy in front of "certain men from James." The point being is that Peter was a fallible man just like the rest of us. Peter and the disciples were obviously the building blocks of the early church but they were built on the foundation which is Christ.
So what is required for someone to go to heaven? The bible is clear that it's belief in Christ and once someone believes they are eternally secure. Peter's confession was proof of his belief in Christ. Jesus had just told him and the disciples present that flesh and blood did not reveal that belief to him, but his father in heaven did. Jesus wasn't elevating Peter up to some higher position. He was telling the disciples that what Peter had just confessed was going to be the foundation of the church and proof that when someone believes in Jesus for everlasting life that they are forever secure in him (i.e. safe from the gates of hell prevailing against it.)
Jude 1:3 (KJV)
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
Sorry if this is rambling this morning but just getting my first cup of coffee. Have a great day. Thanks.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 6:45 am to Canon951
quote:
Would the word "it" be used to refer to a person? I don't think so. "It" is obviously referring to the object being discussed which is the "rock."
I'm irreligious, so I have no dog in this fight, but this is stupid. Do you not understand grammar?
Posted on 8/20/25 at 6:48 am to Mo Jeaux
In the context of the passage, "it" is referring to the object of the sentence which is the "rock".
If you are irreligious why are you even in this thread?
If you are irreligious why are you even in this thread?
Posted on 8/20/25 at 6:50 am to scottydoesntknow
quote:
It was settled long before that
Page 8 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News