- 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: Interesting how "Evangelicals" are separating themselves from "Protestants".
Posted on 10/7/25 at 11:37 am to somethingdifferent
Posted on 10/7/25 at 11:37 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
You will know that person because the evidence will be obvious
Have you met the Corinthians, Galatians, Thessalonians, and Laodecians?
0
Posted on 10/7/25 at 11:55 am to Swampcat
quote:No one is disputing this. But to say that "tradition" turned into the tidal wave of ecclesiastic institution that is the Catholic Church, i.e. Sacred Tradition, requires a commensurate preponderance of evidence. I have been asking for that evidence repeatedly and not 1 catholic apologist has even acknowledged the question, much less given a good faith effort to answer it.
Long before the New Testament came along there was the tradition of the church
I don't understand how Catholics can live with this. It completely pulls the rug right out from underneath the authority of the Church
quote:The NT existed well before that. The church knew which books were in with the exception of maybe a couple, most notably the shepherd of Hermas, and even that book ultimately didn't make it. If that book couldn't make it, there's no way apochryphal books were even close
The New Testament was not officially assimilated until 382 AD at the council of Rome
Posted on 10/7/25 at 12:03 pm to Champagne
quote:You're conflating 2 different topics. Predestination is a feature of God's knowledge. The role it plays in sovereignty has been variously defined. It's the noumenal or "heavenly" side of soteriology.
Faith Alone + Predestination
Sola fide is the earthly dimension. It is a result of a person's response to the gospel call. A person does NOT become saved because they were baptized as an infant or took part in the sacraments or are a codified Catholic, despite what the church says. That's not biblical
Posted on 10/7/25 at 12:05 pm to GumboPot
quote:I think you misunderstand what sola scriptura teaches and means. What you are describing is solo scriptura. Sola scriptura is about final authority. Protestants have historically believed that traditions can be good and useful, and that there are other authorities that exist for Christians, including church leaders and councils. We believe authorities exist like civil governments, work bosses, and parents. The doctrine merely asserts that the highest and only infallible authority for the Christian that all other authorities and helps are subservient to, are the Scriptures alone.
Sola Scriptura has never aligned with me.
There is so much more to Christianity than just Sacred Scripture. There are Sacred Traditions which include oral traditions and the liturgy and the Magisterium. It never made sense to abandon the Magisterium and Sacred Traditions and only use Sacred Scripture. Magisterium and Sacred Traditions make Sacred Scripture come to life.
quote:The canon of the Scriptures were completed before the end of the first century. As new letters were written, they were sent, copied, and forwarded on to the other churches. Statements like "the Bible wasn't commissioned until 396" don't actually speak to the reality of the situation in terms of prevalence of the Scriptures throughout the Church and their authority.
I mean, the Bible wasn't commissioned until 396 and the motivation to do so was due to the fact that there was so much inaccurate Christian teachings happening in Christendom prior to the creation of the bible. Those Christian writings that made it into the bible were guided by the Holy Spirit.
For example, even if one were to believe that all that the Apostles gave to the individual churches orally were equally authoritative, do you think that each congregation had every oral tradition equally shared and explained as every other congregation in the overall Church at the same time? That's unlikely, and we don't have evidence that they were, and yet I'm sure you wouldn't say that those traditions weren't authoritative for the whole Church anyway.
quote:Sorry, but that's false.
Then after the Protestant Reformation in the early 16th century Protestant scholars removed 7 books and said, "nah, these books were never inspired by the Holy Spirit so we are taking them out". And they take out one of the best books, Sirach which is my favorite OT book, lol.
First of all, the authoritative status of the deuterocanon was debated even by faithful Catholics up until and during the Council of Trent. For instance, Cardinal Cajetan--who disputed with Martin Luther--didn't believe that the deuterocanon was authoritative to the same degree as the rest of the canon. There was a historical distinction between the categories of "sacred Scripture", as some books were authoritative while others were helpful for the Church. Not everyone throughout history viewed all books the exact same way. That carried over into the Reformation.
The Reformers made that same acknowledgement, and ensured that the deuterocanon was put in a separate section or grouping in the Bible. Even Martin Luther kept the deuterocanon in his German translation. He just had it in a different section (those claims that Luther removed books are false). The deuterocanon was included in most Protestant Bibles going into the 1800's. The original King James Bible had it, as well as the Geneva Bible, which was one of the first study Bibles and was widely used by Protestants.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 12:09 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Saving faith typically requires knowledge of the facts of the gospel, an agreement that those facts are true and happened in time and space, and trust that those facts apply to you, personally.
Can you point me to the Scripture passage that states this?
Posted on 10/7/25 at 12:18 pm to LockDown
quote:I'll just repeat what I said on the previous page:quote:Can you point me to the Scripture passage that states this?
Saving faith typically requires knowledge of the facts of the gospel, an agreement that those facts are true and happened in time and space, and trust that those facts apply to you, personally.
That understanding is taken from passages such as Rom 10:14,17 and Heb 11:6 (knowledge); Jas 2:19 and Jn 3:33 (assent); and Jn 1:12 and Gal 2:20 (personal trust).
I like how the Heidelberg Catechism summarizes it in question 21 on what true faith is:
True faith is not only a sure knowledge whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a hearty trust, which the Holy Spirit works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits
Posted on 10/7/25 at 12:21 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Protestants don't believe they're their own personal infallible spiritual leaders. They can believe that both the pope and they themselves are fallible. It's not an either/or.
Correct answer.
quote:
The idea that God wants us to get to Heaven but made it so difficult and convoluted that only one who devotes his entire professional life to the scripture can unravel its hidden meaning doesn't make sense to me.
However, now you're doing the same thing he did. No one ever said you had to devote your life to studying scripture in order to be saved. But it does seem like you should know a little sumpin' about if you're going to give hundreds, thousands, or millions of people spiritual guidance. (Note that that kind of pastoring is a different role than an evangelist.)
I can't swallow enough of Catholicism to become Catholic either, but there are things that that they do that I think make sense that the vast majority of Protestant churches do not do.
I think they (and the Orthodox churches as well) leave Protestantism in the dust when it comes to church discipline. Church discipline in 90% of Protestant churches is non-existent.
I also think that formal confession is spiritually beneficial.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 1:13 pm to Champagne
quote:fiducia
Where is this in the Bible?
?John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8–9, Romans 10:9–10, Romans 4:4–5, Galatians 2:16, James 2:19, ?Hebrews 11:6, 2 Corinthians 5:7
notitia
Romans 10:14, 17, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, ?Romans 10:9, ?1 Timothy 2:4, John 20:31, James 2:19
assensus
?1 Thessalonians 2:13, ?Romans 10:9, Ephesians 1:13, James 2:19
Posted on 10/7/25 at 1:21 pm to GumboPot
quote:Nothing else that is authoritative, especially regarding salvation and spiritual maturity. If it doesn't come from the word of God, how can it be authoritative or necessary for salvation?
There is so much more to Christianity than just Sacred Scripture
quote:All made up, man made stuff which has precisely zero authority nor is it necessary for salvation. I've been asking for substation of these things (quote from Jesus Apostles, Patristics) repeatedly and no one has even acknowledged the question, much less answered it
There are Sacred Traditions which include oral traditions and the liturgy and the Magisterium
quote:It existed in the form of the verbal eyewitness testimony of the Apostles. The earliest dates for written transcription push all the way back to 50ad
the Bible wasn't commissioned until 396
quote:Ahistorical Catholic tripe. The apochrypha was NEVER considered canonical, even before the time of Jesus because they contain errors and are not theologically substantive
Then after the Protestant Reformation in the early 16th century Protestant scholars removed 7 books and said, "nah, these books were never inspired by the Holy Spirit so we are taking them out".
Posted on 10/7/25 at 1:32 pm to Champagne
Is no Catholic going to answer the question?
Where is justification for the Visible Church, Magisterium, veneration of the saints, mariolatry, icons/relics, Sacred Tradition, papal Infallibility, Apostolic succession, sacramentalism, pedobaptism, etc?
A quote from Jesus that's not in scripture. A quote from the Apostles that's not in scripture. Quotes from the Patristics. ANYONE
How can you not be bothered by this? It speaks directly to the authority of the church and all of that monumental and monolithic ecclesiastic institution that goes along with it
Where is justification for the Visible Church, Magisterium, veneration of the saints, mariolatry, icons/relics, Sacred Tradition, papal Infallibility, Apostolic succession, sacramentalism, pedobaptism, etc?
A quote from Jesus that's not in scripture. A quote from the Apostles that's not in scripture. Quotes from the Patristics. ANYONE
How can you not be bothered by this? It speaks directly to the authority of the church and all of that monumental and monolithic ecclesiastic institution that goes along with it
This post was edited on 10/7/25 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 10/7/25 at 2:12 pm to FooManChoo
Understood. We are together in Africa on a mission helping people there and doing the Lord's work. You ask me why I'm doing this work there in Africa. I respond to you,
"I am here because I love the Lord with all of my heart and I love my neighbor as myself. I'm doing this work of the Lord because I want to imitate Christ."
According to your definition of Faith Alone, I am Condemned by Almighty God because I have mis-stated the requirements of Faith Alone. God's Wrath against me is more intense than ever now. All of the missionary work that I do and will do in Africa (the very same work you are doing) - Almighty God considers that missionary work to be nothing but used menstrual rags, soaked with rotten blood and pus, dripping with stink and fetidness.
Do I understand you and Faith Alone correctly?
Tell me how I am Condemned to Hell under this scenario.
I assume your answer is the same that you have already provided. If so, I apologize for making your repeat yourself.
"I am here because I love the Lord with all of my heart and I love my neighbor as myself. I'm doing this work of the Lord because I want to imitate Christ."
According to your definition of Faith Alone, I am Condemned by Almighty God because I have mis-stated the requirements of Faith Alone. God's Wrath against me is more intense than ever now. All of the missionary work that I do and will do in Africa (the very same work you are doing) - Almighty God considers that missionary work to be nothing but used menstrual rags, soaked with rotten blood and pus, dripping with stink and fetidness.
Do I understand you and Faith Alone correctly?
Tell me how I am Condemned to Hell under this scenario.
I assume your answer is the same that you have already provided. If so, I apologize for making your repeat yourself.
This post was edited on 10/7/25 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 10/7/25 at 2:15 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
A quote from Jesus that's not in scripture. A quote from the Apostles that's not in scripture. Quotes from the Patristics. ANYONE
This assumes that all teaching must be in Scripture, and only found in scripture. Again, I ask, where is this? You attack your opponents' premise without proving your own.
Do we not know from John's epilogue that there are teachings of Jesus Christ not written in scripture?
Posted on 10/7/25 at 2:19 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
faith through extraordinary means as He chooses.
Foo, Tommy can't do any of the things that you did to be saved by Faith Alone. Now you are crafting an exception to this rule by saying that God can Save whomever He chooses? I agree with you on that point. God can save whomever He chooses to Save, even if He doesn't follow the Faith Alone doctrine.
We agree that Tommy can be Saved even though he cannot properly have knowledge, assent and trust in Faith Alone. I argue that we have found an Exception to your definition of the Faith Alone doctrine.
Perhaps your definition of Faith Alone is too narrow, since there are exceptions? You call these exceptions "extraordinary means."
This post was edited on 10/7/25 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 10/7/25 at 2:20 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
Nothing else that is authoritative, especially regarding salvation and spiritual maturity. If it doesn't come from the word of God, how can it be authoritative or necessary for salvation?
Does the guidance of the Holy Spirit as outlined in John 14 take a lower position?
Posted on 10/7/25 at 2:23 pm to somethingdifferent
Sir, please reveal to us the particular denominational affiliation of that church which you attend and follow.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 2:25 pm to somethingdifferent
Foo conflated these two things, not me.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 2:40 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I'll just repeat what I said on the previous page:
That understanding is taken from passages such as Rom 10:14,17 and Heb 11:6 (knowledge); Jas 2:19 and Jn 3:33 (assent); and Jn 1:12 and Gal 2:20 (personal trust).
I like how the Heidelberg Catechism summarizes it in question 21 on what true faith is:
Pertaining to the Scripture references, it still doesn't come across where the demarcation of faith and "saving" faith is located. The catechism you quoted arrives at a conclusion but doesn't bridge the chasm.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 2:46 pm to Champagne
quote:If you are trusting in Christ alone for your salvation and not your works or the works of others (like the saints), then even a misunderstanding in how you state your faith is excusable, as it isn't your faith that is at issue, but your communication about it. I'm not speaking to that.
Understood. We are together in Africa on a mission helping people there and doing the Lord's work. You ask me why I'm doing this work there in Africa. I respond to you,
"I am here because I love the Lord with all of my heart and I love my neighbor as myself. I'm doing this work of the Lord because I want to imitate Christ."
According to your definition of Faith Alone, I am Condemned by Almighty God because I have mis-stated the requirements of Faith Alone. God's Wrath against me is more intense than ever now. All of the missionary work that I do and will do in Africa (the very same work you are doing) - Almighty God considers that missionary work to be nothing but used menstrual rags, soaked with rotten blood and pus, dripping with stink and fetidness.
Do I understand you and Faith Alone correctly?
Tell me how I am Condemned to Hell under this scenario.
I'm speaking to the difference between the works of one of God's elect vs. the works of a reprobate. I'm talking about the "good works" done by someone who is not justified in the sight of God being counted as sin rather than meritorious good things because good works are only truly good in God's eyes when covered by the blood of Christ.
How often did God condemn Israel because of their faithlessness? Isaiah 1 basically starts out by condemning the lawlessness of the people, how they do their religious "good works" of sacrifices and the like, but were absolutely immoral in all other respects. God says that He doesn't want their sacrifices, their incense, their gatherings of worship and so on because they are wicked, and those works are externalities not done from a penitent heart.
So yes, if you are doing good works without being joined to Christ by a saving faith, those good works are useless.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 2:49 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
All made up, man made stuff
The scriptures too are made up, man made stuff.
Posted on 10/7/25 at 2:51 pm to Champagne
quote:Perhaps I'm not being clear, and if so, I apologize. I'll try to do better.
Foo, Tommy can't do any of the things that you did to be saved by Faith Alone. Now you are crafting an exception to this rule by saying that God can Save whomever He chooses? I agree with you on that point. God can save whomever He chooses to Save, even if He doesn't follow the Faith Alone doctrine.
We agree that Tommy can be Saved even though he cannot properly have knowledge, assent and trust in Faith Alone. I argue that we have found an Exception to your definition of the Faith Alone doctrine.
Perhaps your definition of Faith Alone is too narrow, since there are exceptions? You call these exceptions "extraordinary means."
The Scriptures tell us that faith, itself, is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8), therefore He is free to bestow that gift however He wishes on whomever He wishes, according to His providential election. Since faith is of supernatural origin already, He can choose to give it supernaturally outside of the ordinary means He has provided us (the preaching of the Gospel). He can do that to the infant or the adult who is blind, deaf, and dumb.
At the end of the day, each is saved by faith, but that faith is given to each person according to the will of God, even if just a mustard seed's amount.
I hope that clarifies what I'm saying.
Page 14 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News