Just For Catholics.

[Marymog]

Your church teaches that as well doesn't it? Origen and Tertullian were heretics according to your church. Simple facts aren't hard to find or expose are they. Just requires some reading.

You are right. The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, has the authority to treat someone as a pagan or tax collector.

Where does Scripture say that Nondenom40 has that authority or is the pillar and foundation of truth?

Curious Mary

 

[Nondenom40]

2 Timothy is a pastoral letter from Paul to Timothy. Paul, an Apostle, is instructing Timothy, a pastor, to entrust to faithful men what he taught Timothy. Those men would then teach other men.

Paul teaches Timothy....Timothy teaches faithful men.... faithful men teach other faithful men....Apostolic Succession.

In Luke Jesus says if they reject you they reject me. Sooooo if anyone rejects what Timothy taught then they reject Jesus. If anyone rejects what those faithful men taught, they reject Jesus. (presuming they taught what they were taught)

Its called Apostolic Succession and it is in Scripture in Acts 1.

Mary

Paul discipled Timothy. Theres not a shred of evidence that this verse refers to apostolic succession. Unless you think apostolic succession is the passing on of biblical truth? That we might agree on. But no one took Pauls place as an apostle after Paul dies.

Paul is not laying down some guideline as to who takes Pauls place. That conversation never happens. What Paul said 'in the presence of many witnesses...' he tells Timothy to teach as well to faithful ment, then they can teach others. Its discipleship.

 

[Marymog]

Theres not a shred of evidence that this verse refers to apostolic succession

Really??

An Apostle teaches another man and that man is supposed to teach other men so they can teach other men (4 generations) but that is not Apostolic Succession???

 

[Marymog]

Paul discipled Timothy. Theres not a shred of evidence that this verse refers to apostolic succession. Unless you think apostolic succession is the passing on of biblical truth? That we might agree on. But no one took Pauls place as an apostle after Paul dies.

Paul is not laying down some guideline as to who takes Pauls place. That conversation never happens. What Paul said 'in the presence of many witnesses...' he tells Timothy to teach as well to faithful ment, then they can teach others. Its discipleship.

Soooo you are not confident that what you are being taught by other men is a succession of Apostolic teaching?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Have you carefully examined Catholic *truth* in the light of Scripture, or are you merely a Catholic apologist? The RCC has perverted Bible truth, but you will never admit it.

If the CC has perverted it the Protestant Churches have doubled down.....

 

[Marymog]

Paul discipled Timothy. Theres not a shred of evidence that this verse refers to apostolic succession. Unless you think apostolic succession is the passing on of biblical truth? That we might agree on. But no one took Pauls place as an apostle after Paul dies.

Paul is not laying down some guideline as to who takes Pauls place. That conversation never happens. What Paul said 'in the presence of many witnesses...' he tells Timothy to teach as well to faithful ment, then they can teach others. Its discipleship.

Soooo when Scripture says that Mathias was to take the place of Judas in this ministry and apostleship that is not Apostolic Succession????

 

[Nondenom40]

You are right. The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, has the authority to treat someone as a pagan or tax collector.

Where does Scripture say that Nondenom40 has that authority or is the pillar and foundation of truth?

Curious Mary

You keep misquoting 1 Tim 3:15...just fyi. Have you read 2 Tim 2:15? Another really good verse to memorize.

 

[Nondenom40]

Soooo when Scripture says that Mathias was to take the place of Judas in this ministry and apostleship that is not Apostolic Succession????

Judas went out and hung himself. So they picked a replacement. Now for your apostolic theory to have any teeth, simply find the same clear verse where any other apostle named a successor. We'll wait.

 

[Earburner]

Very misleading.

Jer. 31[34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

 

[Earburner]

And this:
John 1[29] The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

 

[Earburner]

Judas went out and hung himself. So they picked a replacement. Now for your apostolic theory to have any teeth, simply find the same clear verse where any other apostle named a successor. We'll wait.

Paul the apostle was CHOSEN by Christ as the replacement!
Unfortunately, Peter held a 50/50 raffel for 2 candidates of his choice, and then threw the dice (cast lots) as to which one was going to win.
When did the impetuous Peter actually wait to see who God's candidate was going to be?
He didn't! He railroaded the whole selection by the game of chance, all when the Holy Spirit had not yet been given.

 

[Waiting on him]

Paul the apostle was CHOSEN by Christ as the replacement!
Unfortunately, Peter held a 50/50 raffel for 2 candidates of his choice, and then threw the dice (cast lots) as to which one was going to win.
When did the impetuous Peter actually wait to see who God's candidate was going to be?
He didn't! He railroaded the whole selection by the game of chance, all when the Holy Spirit had not yet been given.

Sounds as if your claiming Peter was a little quick to open his mouth prior to the gifting of the Holy Spirit, if this is the case then I agree?

 

[epostle]

Understanding Anti-Catholics: a podcast by Scott Hahn

Understanding Anti-Catholics | St. Paul Center

 

[justbyfaith]

I think that there is a difference between being anti-Catholic and being anti-Catholicism.

 

[epostle]

Paul the apostle was CHOSEN by Christ as the replacement!

Paul the apostle was CHOSEN by Christ, but no where in scripture does he replace anyone.

Unfortunately, Peter held a 50/50 raffel for 2 candidates of his choice, and then threw the dice (cast lots) as to which one was going to win.
When did the impetuous Peter actually wait to see who God's candidate was going to be?
He didn't! He railroaded the whole selection by the game of chance, all when the Holy Spirit had not yet been given.

So the scriptures, as you interpret them, are unfortunate. For God to chose succeeding candidates without human action is unbiblical and not God's design, and Peter is not a con man playing games,

Acts 1:2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.​

The fundamentalist movement began at the turn of the 19th century, in reaction to false Protestant Modernism. If you are a fundamentalist, your identity is a contradiction because you are posting Modernist viewpoints.

​

 

[brakelite]

I have come to the conclusion that epostle has started this thread 'for Catholics only" because he is lonely and needs someone to talk to having blocked almost everyone else.

 

[Earburner]

So the scriptures, as you interpret them, are unfortunate. For God to chose succeeding candidates without human action is unbiblical and not God's

So the scriptures, as you interpret them, are fortunate.
For Peter to choose succeeding candidates, without God's leading, is unbiblical and not God's.

 

[Giuliano]

I have come to the conclusion that epostle has started this thread 'for Catholics only" because he is lonely and needs someone to talk to having blocked almost everyone else.

My theory was maybe he started it hoping non-Catholics would read his posts and watch his videos but not answer.

 

[Earburner]

The fundamentalist movement began at the turn of the 19th century, in reaction to false Protestant Modernism. If you are a fundamentalist, your identity is a contradiction because you are posting Modernist viewpoints.

It doesn't matter to what "religious" terms you want to apply to anyone's viewpoint. It simply boils down to this:
DR Catholic Bible- Rom. 8:8-9
[8] And they who are in the flesh, cannot please God.

[9] But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
.
So, you can call yourself Catholic, Baptist, Jehovah's Witness etc., but if you don't HAVE the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit) dwelling within you, you don't belong to Christ, no matter what "religion" you attend or sign up to.

 

[Enoch111]

Understanding Anti-Catholics: a podcast by Scott Hahn

Catholic apologist Scott Hahn was a Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism. But in spite of his seminary education, he is seriously confused about fundamental Bible truths. No need to listen to Scott Hahn and his pro-Catholic propaganda.

Here's a gem from Hahn: "Hebrews is unique in the emphasis it places on "covenant" as a cultic and liturgical institution."

Anyone familiar with the book of Hebrews can see that this is TOTAL NONSENSE. There is nothing cultic or liturgical about the New Covenant which is the focus of the book of Hebrews.