Historical Christianity is One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DarkMark said:
History proves Apostolic succession. The Early Church Fathers writings proves Apostolic Succession. Christ said he will guide His Church. And thats what He did for the past 2000 years. The Bible proves that there were offices in the Early Church (Bishops, Deacons, Priests, etc; 1 Tim 3 etc).

Believing in God also takes a great deal of faith.
Click to expand...
Even Satan believe. Yet he fears the Lord God. Christianity is more about believing in Jesus Christ.

To believe in Christ is to believe everything he has said and what he has pass down to his Apostles, and their successors. Jesus made it very clear that “he who hears you, hears me, he who rejects you, rejects the one who sent me.” When the Church speaks in moral and faith, it is Jesus who speaks. We also see that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth in 1 Timothy 3:15. We also see that where is there disagreement amongst you, Jesus said, “Take it to the Church” (Matthew 18:17) and this is affirmed in Acts Chapter 15:1-41.
 
jmcrae said:
Rightlydivide;2930522:
He called all
Click to expand...
of St. Paul’s writings “Scripture” - not only the few letters that made it into the Bible.
That is a self defeating statement. Unless one does not believe the Bible. Only Paul’s letters that made it into the Bible are scripture.
Click to expand...
 
Rightlydivide said:
That is a self defeating statement. Unless one does not believe the Bible. Only Paul’s letters that made it into the Bible are scripture.
Click to expand...
Out of curiousity. What Bible translation do you use anything? You would not accept the KJV which some of us used, as well as the NIV.
 
HailMary said:
“You are you using an extra-biblical source, I only believe whats in the bible.”

Sound familiar?
Click to expand...
I can read extra biblical sources but I believe whats in the Bible. I have read more than most on here it seems
 
DarkMark said:
If you only believe whats in the Bible, you will not believe a concordance. . . .
Click to expand...
I do only believe what is in the Bible for doctrine. A concordance is a helpful means to look at the definitions, maps, etc. If you cannot see the difference, I am not sure I can explain it to you. A Catholic believes in doctrine from the Bible(the wrong one but that is a different thread), tradition, and its leadership. But it still uses concordances. What is the difference?
 
Rightlydivide said:
That is a self defeating statement. Unless one does not believe the Bible. Only Paul’s letters that made it into the Bible are scripture.
Click to expand...
St. Peter does not provide us with a list of St. Paul’s writings, nor does he indicate that some of St. Paul’s writings are not actually Scripture in the sense of being inspired of the Holy Spirit, and yet the Church only chose a few of St. Paul’s writings to include in the Bible - a great many of them were left out.

By what criteria do you know which books belong in the Bible? If you just say, Well the ones that are in there are obviously the right ones, then you are trusting the Roman Catholic Church to have been guided by the Holy Spirit in its choices. But if you say that the Roman Catholic Church just got lucky and happened to pick the right ones, then how do you know that? What criteria outside of the decisions of the Church do you use to know that they just happened to get lucky?
 
jmcrae said:
Rightlydivide;2930624:
St. Peter does not provide us with a list of St. Paul’s writings, nor does he indicate that some of St. Paul’s writings are not actually Scripture in the sense of being inspired of the Holy Spirit, and yet the Church only chose a few of St. Paul’s writings to include in the Bible - a great many of them were left out.

By what criteria do you know which books belong in the Bible? If you just say, Well the ones that are in there are obviously the right ones, then you are trusting the Roman Catholic Church to have been guided by the Holy Spirit in its choices. But if you say that the Roman Catholic Church just got lucky and happened to pick the right ones, then how do you know that? What criteria outside of the decisions of the Church do you use to know that they just happened to get lucky?
Click to expand...
The Roman Catholic church did not decide the Bible. God did. I know because of my faith in God and his ability to preserve his Word.
Click to expand...
 
Rightlydivide said:
I do only believe what is in the Bible for doctrine. A concordance is a helpful means to look at the definitions, maps, etc. If you cannot see the difference, I am not sure I can explain it to you. A Catholic believes in doctrine from the Bible(the wrong one but that is a different thread), tradition, and its leadership. But it still uses concordances. What is the difference?
Click to expand...
If you only believe whats in the Bible then thats only a 500 year old doctrine, proposed by Martin Luther. . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top