T
The_Question
Guest
Where exactly does Paul mention Peter’s ‘succesor’?
- Status
P
ppasa316
Guest
Sorry I cannot retract what is in the Word of God. I have provided plenty of Scriptures. If a person truly gives their life to the Lord there is nothing and I mean nothing that can seperate them from the love of God. What the Father has given into the hand of the Son no one can take them away. This is one issue that i will not go away from.How nice:shrug:
I have shown mutiple time on this Forum and on this string that what you say is not proveable with biblical evidence.
Please provide the specifics of you’re position or retract it.
Love and prayers,
Pat
T
The_Question
Guest
My brother, the problem is you are talking to people who want to argue about ‘always saved’ but are not qualified to, because they don’t hold to nor understand ‘once saved’! You’re talking to dead men walking.
J
jam070406
Guest
T
The_Question
Guest
That letter is so flawed. The Muslim religion has been around longer than the RCC and has more followers. So what? There are thousands upon thousands of scholars lined up behind Mac to say the same things about the RCC. It promotes ‘another gospel’ and needs, like the JW’s, to produce other sources of authority to justify its aberrant doctrines.
J
jam070406
Guest
Oh? Do tell.
Is this serious?? Islam is older than the Catholic Church?? When (in your mind) do you think the Catholic Church was established and when do think Islam was established?
No kidding, about 30,000 different denominations that can’t agree with each other let alone the Catholic Church.
Really? What’s the ‘another gospel’ and by what authority do you declare it so?
What makes your interpretation of scripture correct and JW’s wrong?
Please specify those aberrant doctrines.
Thanks.
God bless!
T
The_Question
Guest
Enjoy your darkness while you can. Say hi to the JW’s for us.Oh? Do tell.
Is this serious?? Islam is older than the Catholic Church?? When (in your mind) do you think the Catholic Church was established and when do think Islam was established?
No kidding, about 30,000 different denominations that can’t agree with each other let alone the Catholic Church.
Really? What’s the ‘another gospel’ and by what authority do you declare it so?
What makes your interpretation of scripture correct and JW’s wrong?
Please specify those aberrant doctrines.
Thanks.
God bless!
J
jam070406
Guest
T
The_Question
Guest
You’ve already demonstrated that I would merely be casting pearls before the proverbial swine
J
jam070406
Guest
And you lost all credibility by stating that Islam is older then the Catholic Church anyway.
T
The_Question
Guest
Yeh, that was my bad. I meant to refer to Egypt’s religion. Doesn’t change a single fact about the RCC. Stuff you’ve heard many times and hardened your heart toward.
J
jam070406
Guest
Yeah, stuff I’ve heard debunked many times before because it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If anyone’s heart is hardened it’s yours, based on your prejudice of the Catholic Church and lies and misconceptions preposed by people like John MacArthur.
M
M0nkey
Guest
Perhaps you would do well to research this yourself. You have a quite a bit to go.
T
Tomster
Guest
Exactly. The key word here is to research it “yourself.” Isn’t that what sola scriptura is all about anyway? Perhaps he needs to listen to another person though (MacArthur?, Swaggart?, Van Impe?) to get some good old time Bible teaching from a self appointed interpreter of Scripture?
M
moondweller
Guest
Well, here’s your problem, Monkey:
First of all Scripture merely records what Peter did by suggesting that they draw straws to select another (an O.T. custom). But this was unprecedented since it was Jesus Himself who chose them, they didn’t choose amongst themselves (Jn. 15:16). The theopneustos Scriptures do not record that Jesus appeared to Peter giving Him instruction to do what he did. The only instruction they had from Christ was not to leave Jerusalem and to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit whom the Father had promised (Acts 1:4). Their choosing of Matthias was done even before the coming of the Holy Spirit who was to be sent to guide them.
Secondly, Judas was not an Apostle sent by Christ to take the good news of Himself to the world to be believed for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life. Judas never saw the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:8), nor did he receive the 40 day post resurrection instruction by Christ to those He prepared to take His gospel to the world. Hence, he was never a true Apostle. We do know, however, from the theopneustos Scriptures that Jesus Himself did choose Saul of Tarsus to be His Apostle and he received his gospel directly from Christ Himself (see Gal. 1:11-12; 2 Cor. 12:1-7).
Thirdly, it’s my understanding that not even RC scholars appeal to the episode with Matthias to substantiate its claims for Apostolic “succession” since the official teaching of your church is that its Bishops are not Apostles but, it is said, only their threefold power of teaching, sanctifying, and ruling is what is succeeded. IOW, it’s taught that your Bishops have the power but not the office. But, c’mon, without the office how can there be, in reality, a “successor?” A “successor” replaces both the person and the position.
And what might his name be? Chapter? Verse? How is it Peter himself didn’t name his “successor” in his own Epistles? How is it the Apostles never used the word “successors” or even hinted to the idea that there would be such a thing. In the churches they appointed elders, not “successors.”
In Acts 2:43 it’s said that the Apostles performed wondrous signs to confirm both their ministry and message. And in 2 Cor. 2:12 Paul says to the Corinthians in his own defense:2 Cor 12:12 "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles."Yet after the death of the Apostles those signs and wonders all but ceased. We have no record of such powers being passed on to so-called “successors.” No need because, you see, in the Apostles the foundation of the church was laid and Christ is building His church upon that foundation to this very day. We have the Apostle’s complete message, their testimonies and their teachings preserved for us in theopneustos Scriptures. No new revelation is ever needed - the foundation of the church was laid ONCE and Christ is building upon it.
M
moondweller
Guest
“Self appointed interpreter of Scripture?” Who is officially appointed the “Interpreter of Scripture?” Please provide for me the divine source that reveals this official in the church. It’s not listed as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. There’s the gift of interpretation, but that has to do with interpreting tongues. Who in the first century were given the title of official, divine “Interpreters of Scripture?”Exactly. The key word here is to research it “yourself.” Isn’t that what sola scriptura is all about anyway? Perhaps he needs to listen to another person though (MacArthur?, Swaggart?, Van Impe?) to get some good old time Bible teaching from a self appointed interpreter of Scripture?
Obviously there would have had to be official O.T. and N.T. “Interpreters.” Who was the first named official “Interpreter” in the O.T.? Who was the first named official “Interpreter” in the N.T.? Provide for me the divine source that gives us information on these special people and their special ministry.
I don’t read in 1 Cor. 12:28 that “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third interpreters of Scripture….” Do you?
P
PJM
Guest
[QUOT]E=benedictus2;5245620]Yes, I would agree with that 100%. I remember Scott and Kimberly Hahn being totally convinced that contraception is okay until they read and studied Catholic teaching and realized that the Catholic Church was the only one who had the Biblically correct stand on this.
When they were practicing contraception they were sincere, but it cannot be said that they were correct and that they were following Christ. When they realized the error of their belief, they abandoned contraception even whilst they still remained Presbyterian.
**Excellent post! **:tiphat:
Thank you!
When they were practicing contraception they were sincere, but it cannot be said that they were correct and that they were following Christ. When they realized the error of their belief, they abandoned contraception even whilst they still remained Presbyterian.
**Excellent post! **:tiphat:
Thank you!
P
ppasa316
Guest
Pretty Sad but if i can get 1 person to understand then i think i have done my service. I went thru this before with a co worker. He would argue every point that i was sharing with him. Then one day by the Grace of God, he told me he gave his life to the Lord. He began reading his bible everyday. Now he comes and tells me he now understands what i had been telling him.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
So, you’re here hoping to lead Catholics out of the Church? Good luck with that. The Catholics who post here are pretty smart, and a large percentage of them are converts from various and sundry non-Catholic Christian faith communities. Many of us have had a very good “understanding” of this “other gospel” you’re preaching here, and have found it wanting. It is, I hope you know, a violation of forum rules to have this as your goal in posting here.
I, as a Catholic, do read the Scriptures daily, and have given my life to the Lord - that’s how I came to be Catholic, as a matter of fact! I was seeking God and praying fervently that He would reveal to me His will for my life, and God. made. me. Catholic. I have a closer, deeper relationship with Jesus Christ than ever before. The Scriptures make more sense in light of Catholic teaching than they did when I was a Baptist and I had to ignore, explain away or gloss over any passage that didn’t agree with my theology.
Reading the Bible made me Catholic, by the Grace of God.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
So, any person who is Catholic is not saved?
What if someone had their initial “born-again” salvation experience as a 19 year-old in a Baptist church, was baptized by immersion, served God faithfully in the Baptist church for 14 years, and then started reading their Bible and found themselves Catholic?
By your definition and your belief in “Once saved, always saved” I’m just as saved now as I was as a Baptist and as alive in Christ as I’ll ever need to be.
- Status