- 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 10/5/25 at 10:41 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 10/5/25 at 10:41 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
may not be a large number, but your statement is absolutely false.
You’re right. A handful of people born before 1970 clamor for the priest to say mass in a language that no one has ever actually spoken aloud. Not even the Romans spoke clerical Latin at any point.
This post was edited on 10/5/25 at 10:42 pm
1
Posted on 10/5/25 at 11:56 pm to Diamondawg
Baptists preceded the catholic church, therefore never protested against it or split from it.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 12:19 am to somethingdifferent
Glad you’re back somethingdifferent.
I can’t hang around all day and I don’t expect you to either. This will be my last go for tonight so I’m not going to answer
I will answer it upon my next awakening moment. Sometimes I wake up in the wee hours. But I hope not.
Now for “The Reformation?” Section. I apologize. I didn’t realize you were talking about the misfortunes of 500 years ago. But I can clearly see that it can be a Reformation reference.
I thought this was a reference to the common Protestant belief that the Christian Church ceased to exist sometime between 150AD and Constantine and was reborn under Father Martin Luther. Now you may not hold to this Protestant Pearl but many do. And if you fairly read what you wrote you can understand my misunderstanding. That was the fight I was preparing to fight.
No argument from me that Protestants started their beliefs and traditions 500 years ago.
Now to some short and sweet answers.
Ah, so you’re not a Solo Scriptura Protestant. Good.
I have. And you know what? They taught me significant Christianity. But, they greatly straw dog the Catholic faith. They make false claims about the Church, and then easily tear the straw dog apart with truthful but sometimes misunderstood biblical quotes.
Well let’s take a walk with our eyes open.
400 years ago.
From the King James online.org: “The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and genealogies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.”
From 1000 years ago.
The Great Schism, Orthodoxy and the Catholic Churches separated but both have the deuterocanonical books Luther threw out.
1600 years ago.
The Coptic Church separated from the Catholic/Orthodox Church. And they have the Apocrypha that you reject.
1900 to 2200 years ago.
The Jewish Essenes recorded apocrypha in their Dead Sea Scrolls.
2200 years ago.
The Septuagint was translated into Greek for the Jewish diaspora. And guess what. The apocrypha is still there!
So that begs the question of why did Protestants remove it? The answer is simple. They contradicted many of Luther’s personal beliefs. He also had difficulty with some of our (yours and mine) New Testament books and he tried to remove them too. Fortunately for all Christians, he was unsuccessful.
But an even bigger question is where did your scripture come from. Or how do we know Mathew wrote Mathew? Or why is the Gospel of John canonical but the Gospel of Thomas is not? The answer my friend is the Catholic/Orthodox Church. Yes I am referring to Holy Tradition that started and guided Christianity before the New Testament books were written, collected, debated, and codified.
Now prove to me why your so called apocrypha should not be in any of the Ancient Churches’ Canon.
I can’t hang around all day and I don’t expect you to either. This will be my last go for tonight so I’m not going to answer
quote:
Papacy. Saint veneration. Sacramentalism. Mariolatry. Purgatory. Pedobaptism. Icons. Did you know we're not supposed to have icons of Jesus on the cross, like Catholics do? The cross is supposed to be empty. Do you know why? Before you go slinging around Catholic propaganda, go watch Gavin Ortlund and Jordan Cooper. They give solid biblical explanations of these matters.
I will answer it upon my next awakening moment. Sometimes I wake up in the wee hours. But I hope not.
Now for “The Reformation?” Section. I apologize. I didn’t realize you were talking about the misfortunes of 500 years ago. But I can clearly see that it can be a Reformation reference.
I thought this was a reference to the common Protestant belief that the Christian Church ceased to exist sometime between 150AD and Constantine and was reborn under Father Martin Luther. Now you may not hold to this Protestant Pearl but many do. And if you fairly read what you wrote you can understand my misunderstanding. That was the fight I was preparing to fight.
No argument from me that Protestants started their beliefs and traditions 500 years ago.
Now to some short and sweet answers.
quote:
It's a good explanation of what Melancthon called adiaphora
Ah, so you’re not a Solo Scriptura Protestant. Good.
quote:
Before you go slinging around Catholic propaganda, go watch Gavin Ortlund and Jordan Cooper. They give solid biblical explanations of these matters.
I have. And you know what? They taught me significant Christianity. But, they greatly straw dog the Catholic faith. They make false claims about the Church, and then easily tear the straw dog apart with truthful but sometimes misunderstood biblical quotes.
quote:
You think you're going to legitimize the apochrypha? You have really been brainwashed.
Well let’s take a walk with our eyes open.
400 years ago.
From the King James online.org: “The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and genealogies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.”
From 1000 years ago.
The Great Schism, Orthodoxy and the Catholic Churches separated but both have the deuterocanonical books Luther threw out.
1600 years ago.
The Coptic Church separated from the Catholic/Orthodox Church. And they have the Apocrypha that you reject.
1900 to 2200 years ago.
The Jewish Essenes recorded apocrypha in their Dead Sea Scrolls.
2200 years ago.
The Septuagint was translated into Greek for the Jewish diaspora. And guess what. The apocrypha is still there!
So that begs the question of why did Protestants remove it? The answer is simple. They contradicted many of Luther’s personal beliefs. He also had difficulty with some of our (yours and mine) New Testament books and he tried to remove them too. Fortunately for all Christians, he was unsuccessful.
But an even bigger question is where did your scripture come from. Or how do we know Mathew wrote Mathew? Or why is the Gospel of John canonical but the Gospel of Thomas is not? The answer my friend is the Catholic/Orthodox Church. Yes I am referring to Holy Tradition that started and guided Christianity before the New Testament books were written, collected, debated, and codified.
Now prove to me why your so called apocrypha should not be in any of the Ancient Churches’ Canon.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 5:53 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:I am confused. I thought you were reformed (PCA or something close). Where does it say the we (Protestants) rely on some human as our leader saves us. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is all you need. And that Faith we lead you many things as good works (James says Faith without works is Dead). Romans makes very clear that Faith is what saves not some infallible human (which there are none).
The idea that spiritual leaders are infallible, especially ones in an office with a long history of corruption, is ridiculous to me as well. Jesus taught us that religious leaders can be corrupt, so thinking the leader of the catholic church can't be is absurd. Infallibility of the leader is also present in most cults, for the record. At the least, a human proclaiming infallibility should give one pause.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 6:00 am to John somers
quote:One was after the Reformation. One wasn't. You guess!
Baptists preceded the catholic church, therefore never protested against it or split from it.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 6:03 am to Indefatigable
quote:Who would want that? Maybe a few liturgical rituals (not Catholic so I don't know how things roll) but if there is a message in a "sermon" I want to be able to understand.
You’re right. A handful of people born before 1970 clamor for the priest to say mass in a language that no one has ever actually spoken aloud. Not even the Romans spoke clerical Latin at any point.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 6:03 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
Everything that needed to be recorded was recorded. If it wasn't recorded in the NT, it wasn't needed for salvation.
Think about this. The Catholic church is basically saying "there's a BUNCH of stuff that is necessary for salvation but God neglected to have his people write it down. Instead, they were allegedly passed down even though we have absolutely no record of it at all and most of it shows up hundreds of years later. Oh and you can't really trust the HS to help you with these things. That's why you need the pope."
Farcical and unbiblical
A significant portion of Scripture is written in figurative, not literal, language. I've read multiple theologians come to different interpretations on one line of text. This can be challenging. So what are we to do to try and find a deeper meaning? Can we consult external commentary as an aid? Is there any that you recommend?
Posted on 10/6/25 at 7:10 am to GumboPot
I was once called a crazy person, dumbass, and troll for pointing this out years ago 
Posted on 10/6/25 at 7:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Well, you are a crazy dumbass for not at least skimming the 8 page thread. But you are the SFP. You don't need to because you are the only one that right, huh?
I was once called a crazy person, dumbass, and troll for pointing this out years ago
Posted on 10/6/25 at 7:17 am to Diamondawg
quote:
because you are the only one that right, huh?
I never said that
Posted on 10/6/25 at 7:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Can't imagine why you would change. A half million posts prove that.
I never said that
Posted on 10/6/25 at 7:46 am to GumboPot
I’d say they should come home to the Catholic Church but we have let Jews infiltrate the church and bastardize everything.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 8:50 am to Lsukinesalum2001
quote:
That is what satan wants… for us to attack each other.
Yes, that is correct. That's why we should try to avoid Satan's tactics, and, when somebody suggests that we might have become counter-productive in any particular thread, I try to avoid doubling-down on attacking a person with theological differences.
But it's funny how often a person can think he's doing the Lord's Work when in fact, he's attacking the Body of Christ by attacking a fellow Christian. Satan can be very deceptive.
Tigerdroppings and Political Talk has a lot of hate for Catholics. It's a bit eye-opening to me to realize how much hate and aggression so many fellow Christians can have against the Catholic Church and the Pope.
We have a term for the irrational Anti Trump Hate and we call it "Trump Derangement Syndrome". Seems to me that the most aggressive attackers around here who are against Catholics have something like TDS, but against Catholicism.
This post was edited on 10/6/25 at 9:08 am
Posted on 10/6/25 at 8:54 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Is it, though?
Because I see nothing remotely interesting in the polling you provided. Just nonsense media polls from suburban areas outside of major cities.
I agree with you. I don't see OP's point here. The polling he provided doesn't say anything profound. It does seem to be a nonsense media poll.
The OP does seem to have ignited some Demonic Attacks and Hostility, however.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 9:08 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
I wish people could understand this doesn't mean what they think it means
Please tell me what it means and then, then tell ME what I think it means, since you're apparently in my head.
quote:
I'm not saying Catholics/EO can't be true followers of Jesus, but people need to understand those 2 streams have extra teachings that are not biblical/from Jesus and end up being heretical
Are you Reformed? And you're telling me that Protestantism, with its own various sects, don't have extra teachings that are non-biblical? That there aren't Protestant churches teaching heretical doctrine? (See my point about Calvinism)
Please cite the heretical teachings in the Catholic & Orthodox churches. I'm not even saying you're wrong, but you've made the assertion, so I'd like you to expound.
How much of the Early Church Fathers have you read? I'm guessing zero, but maybe I'm wrong & I totally could be. Do you read theological texts at all, or is the Bible the only Christian text in your household? If you do read Christian Theological texts, or authors, etc., could you tell me what & who you like to read?
No gotcha questions, I'm genuinely curious.
This post was edited on 10/6/25 at 9:09 am
Posted on 10/6/25 at 9:10 am to John somers
quote:
Baptists preceded the catholic church, therefore never protested against it or split from it.
Baptism preceded the catholic church, therefore never protested against it or split from it.
FIFY
Posted on 10/6/25 at 9:25 am to Champagne
Flats noticed this hypocrisy:
Champagne quote:
Also you:
Gimme a break.
But now you again with what is a bizarre persecution complex fetish:
And again:
Stop it. "Demonic attacks" REALLY?? Come on man.
You never provided citation of any so called "hate" of RCCs.
What I've seen are some accusations of Protestantism as "heretic", a staunch defense of Biblical truth BY Protestants of Protestantism, and (mostly) polite exchanges and scriptural historical context -- along with comparative critiques, assessments and opinions by both sects.
Please lose the attempts at censorship, hyper-emotional persecution complex and martyrdom. It's tiresome.
Neither God nor Jesus cares about what brand or team a church is. They care about the Way, Truth and Life.
Champagne quote:
quote:
We know that Protestants will never concede the point because of the Bible passage disparaging "man-made" tradition, so Protestants must "shoe-horn" Sacred Tradition into that Bible passage.
That's a very deceitful thing to do.
Also you:
quote:
Could we stop accusing, judging and ridiculing EOC and RCC doctrine around here please?
Gimme a break. But now you again with what is a bizarre persecution complex fetish:
quote:
Tigerdroppings and Political Talk has a lot of hate for Catholics. It's a bit eye-opening to me to realize how much hate and aggression so many fellow Christians can have against the Catholic Church and the Pope.
And again:
quote:
The OP does seem to have ignited some Demonic Attacks and Hostility, however.
Stop it. "Demonic attacks" REALLY?? Come on man. You never provided citation of any so called "hate" of RCCs.
What I've seen are some accusations of Protestantism as "heretic", a staunch defense of Biblical truth BY Protestants of Protestantism, and (mostly) polite exchanges and scriptural historical context -- along with comparative critiques, assessments and opinions by both sects.
Please lose the attempts at censorship, hyper-emotional persecution complex and martyrdom. It's tiresome.
Neither God nor Jesus cares about what brand or team a church is. They care about the Way, Truth and Life.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 9:38 am to EphesianArmor
You seem to hold a lot of hostility against me. I will pray for you.
You also seem to think that I am the only one on Tigerdroppings to have ever noticed some hate for Catholics around here. That is certainly not the case.
I hope that your will continue to scrutinize all of my posts in good faith and in effort to promote respectful discussion. If you are scrutinizing all of my posts to try to formulate additional attacks against me, then, perhaps you should step back and consider whether this is something that Satan would like you to do.
You also seem to think that I am the only one on Tigerdroppings to have ever noticed some hate for Catholics around here. That is certainly not the case.
I hope that your will continue to scrutinize all of my posts in good faith and in effort to promote respectful discussion. If you are scrutinizing all of my posts to try to formulate additional attacks against me, then, perhaps you should step back and consider whether this is something that Satan would like you to do.
Posted on 10/6/25 at 9:42 am to EphesianArmor
quote:
What I've seen are some accusations of Protestantism as "heretic",
"Heretic" is a term that triggers way too much emotion in our society. All it means is that we have two different theological schools of thought. Each school of thought is Heresy to the other. No need for us to get triggered by the term as though it is some kind of synonym for Evil.
If a person is a Heretic to me, that's no big deal to me. They aren't evil for that reason.
I'm a Heretic to you. You are a Heretic to me. No need for us to attack each other over this.
And yes, when we attack each other with aggression and over zealousness, this is the kind of thing that a Demon or Satan would do, or would like us to do. We are attacking the Body of Christ when we do this and we are inflicting additional wounds on the Body of Christ when we do this.
This post was edited on 10/6/25 at 9:44 am
Posted on 10/6/25 at 9:53 am to EphesianArmor
quote:
Flats noticed this hypocrisy:
You didn't read all of my posts. You seem triggered by the word "deceitful" and you use that to call me hypocritical. In a later post, I changed the word to "disingenuous".
Let's say you proclaim a Catholic practice "unbiblical", then a Catholic points out a Bible passage that a reasonable person might say supports the practice. Then you ignore that reasonable alternate and continue to attack the Catholic practice as "ridiculous" and "unbiblical", despite being shown otherwise with reasonable evidence.
When a person uses those tactics to attack a Catholic practice, I say that person is perhaps being deceitful or disingenuous. It's disingenuous because they are determined to continue that line of attack and are willing to ignore a reasonable explanation of or defense of the particular practice.
This person is not acting in good faith. He is being disingenuous and maybe even deceitful.
And if a week passes and the same person repeats the SAME line of attack, even though he knows that this question has already been discussed on PT, then I might wonder whether this person is just here to attack the Catholic Church.
I don't think that's me having any kind of persecution complex. That's me being a person that examines the facts and draws logical conclusions therefrom.
Page 8 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News