Posted on 03/23/2007 5:54:47 PM PDT by NYer
Does that disqualify refering to Titus 3:2. I think anyone who reads it would say it only states that you can't have a twice married bishop. He can't be an alcoholic, that doesn't mean he can't drink the occasional glass to vino.
You forgot that iscool gets his history of the Catholic Church from Boetner. Therefore if you don't like it, just claim it must be a forgery or something to that extent.
What's your position on Dispensationalism?
What's your position on the Rapture?
What's your position on infant baptism?
What's your position on the Holy Eucharist?
What's your position on Free Will?
What's your position on Predestination?
I think you will find that numerous Protestant Christian "Churches" have numerous viewpoints on these issues. Which one is correct?
There's an ongoing thread right now that covers some of this stuff...Check it out...
LOL, cause the truth is undeniable. ROTFLMAO. I recommend not trusting Boettner for your Catholic History. Just a recommendation.
Now there you go again...It doesn't say you can't have a twice married bishop...It says you must be the husband of one wife...World of difference there...
And that is precisely why there are different Protestant denominations...You don't like what the scripture says, so you change it to suit your religion...
Never heard of Boetner...But thanks, I'll check 'em out...
So you claim your church has an unbroken line back to Peter...But your line didn't allow Timothy, or Titus, or John, James, Jude or even Paul the opportunity to be a pope...Some of the origingal apostles...
I'd say you got the wrong line...wouldn't you???
If Peter was the head of the church, surely he would have picked one of the available first line apostles to succeed him...Surely that makes sense, doesn't it???
How do you know Clement wasn't married, and had no children?
I've previously dealt with the silly exegesis that has St. Paul supposedly praising single celibacy in 1 Cor 7, and then prohibiting single celibates from being bishops or priests in 1 Tm -- as well as declaring Christ, St. John, and perhaps himself as well to be ineligible!
If St. Paul had wanted to prohibit the episcopacy to single celibates, he would simply have said "bishops must be married," not "husband of one wife". He is prohibiting those who have remarried, not those who are "eunuchs for the kingdom of God".
As you say, "context, context, context". Why don't you practice it?
Don't you find it odd that Clement was a pope in your religion but Timothy, a major bible figure was not???
I find it odd that you find that odd. Most "major bible figures" weren't Popes.
However, St. Clement is mentioned in Scripture, as is the second Pope, St. Linus.
St. Timothy was a bishop in the east, probably at Ephesus. Nothing wrong with that, he was a fine man and is a great saint. Tradition records that he was martyred for the faith around the year 97. St. Timothy, pray for us.
LOL.
The only apostle who would have been a legitimate candidate (alive, not too old, whereabouts known with some certainty) was St. John. He was not in Rome, but in Ephesus.
You're edging perilously close to a Mormon argument ... "the church fell apart when the last apostle died, and had to be restored in the 1840's by a God-anointed prophet from upstate New York".
Their is only one Bishop of Rome. Peter was followed by Linus who was followed by Anacletus who was followed by Clement who was followed by . . .
That is not to minimize in any way the work of St. Paul and St. Titus, St. Timothy or St. James or St. John or St. Matthew/Mark/Luke. (BTW, Timothy, Titus and Paul weren't original apostles, again, this is no way demeans their contributions to The Church).
The Pope does not pick their successor. The Pope is picked by the leaders of the Christian Community of Rome.
BTW, by your logic, St. Paul couldn't even be a Bishop.
My position is the bible's position...My position is Paul's position...
Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God;
Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
Of course I'm a dispensationalist...The bible is dispensational...
What's your position on the dispensations???
What's your position on the Rapture?
My position is the bible position...And that of course is that at the fullness of times, when the dispensation of grace is complete, God will call out his espoused bride and bring her to the wedding...
What's your position on infant baptism?
There are two types of baptism...On is immersion in water, the other is immersion in the Holy Spirit...Obviously you can't baptize a baby in water, you'll drown him/her...And there's no need to baptize the baby into the Holy Spirit since where there is no knowledge of sin, there is no sin attributed...
What's your position on the Holy Eucharist?
And invention by your church to put a leash on it's members...
What's your position on Free Will?
We have the free will to accept salvation or reject it...We have the free will to follow God or follow Satan...
What's your position on Predestination?
God predestinated a Gentile church...And whosoever will come, come...
That is a really good point. If you argue that the Catholic Church went wrong early on, you must identify where the True Church resided. In the end you are right, you lean toward the Great Apostasy argument.
That's not what it says...
I find it odd that you find that odd. Most "major bible figures" weren't Popes
That's what I'm saying...Paul was THE apostle to the Gentile church...Your church...Why would Peter not pass the popeship to Paul??? And then Paul to Timothy???
However, St. Clement is mentioned in Scripture, as is the second Pope, St. Linus.
You don't know if it was the same Linus, or the same Clement...And there's no proof that Clement wrote his epistles...They could have been written by Origen and claimed to have been written by Clement...You're operating on faith, not proof...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.