James White vs Tim Staples - Papal Infallibility Debate - Opening Statements and Rebuttals (Audio)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 сер 2018
- The question under consideration: Can Papal infallibility stand under the weight of Church history? Staples affirms. White Denies.
This debate was converted from an old cassette tape. So, try to pardon the background noise and interference.
I have already uploaded the cross examination and Q&A portions of this debate. They can be found here:
Cross exam: • James White vs Tim Sta...
Q&A: • James White vs Tim Sta...
*No copyright infringement intended. I share this video according to the Fair Use Clause for the purposes of education and edification.
I followed James White advice to read the church fathers. What I'm reading trouble me so much that I'm not longer protestant. I'm considering apostolic churches.
Read the very earliest ones. You will find a message-sadly already starting to conflate grace and works-are otherwise *very* close to what you read in the Bible and not at all as close to later Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy.
Well good for you! Go ? If not, read it again? You'll return! Lol
@@brockgeorge777 ofc I read the earliest ones. That's where I would think mist people beginnings.
@@ttshiroma I don't think so. It's very clear Protestantism is not the belief of the early church. But who knows man, you might be right. But I highly doubt it.
I’m very unconcerned about whether the early church (post New Testament) was exactly like the modern Protestant churches. I am *much* more concerned with whether it’s development was *closer* to the the modern mainline (Biblically based) Protestant Church than what has historically characterized the RC and Orthodox churches. On *that* score I note a lack of priests, an appeal to the Corinthians from Clement of Rome
as to equals in the faith that he believed where out of bounds with Apostolic teaching in how they were getting rid of their bishop. Yes a bishop is a further development, as is the already evident conflation of Justification with Sanctification in some of the writings vs what Paul *clearly* spelled out, but *overall* what you read sounds *very* much like what is described in Scripture, and very little like what you encounter in the Imperial Church with its *much* more developed hierarchical structures.
BTW, the Grace/Sanctification confusion doesn’t surprise me. Many of Paul’s admonitions about combining grace with meritorious works were aimed at just that confusion. Moreover, I view it as an inevitable over-reaction to the Antinomians (e.g., the Nicolaitans) who turned the Grace of our Lord into licentiousness. Their condemnation is just. (Jud 1:4; Rom 3:8)
Wow! Roman Catholic position got exposed throughout this debate
Exposed? As in its error was exposed? Tim Staples systematically broke all of White's major arguments.
@@enniomojica7812 lol....cant even admit the truth even when thoroughly embarrassed and exoosed!!!! Its ok, i guess i would deny it myself !!!! Likewise in other debates with Dr White ,...Mr Staples
Has been caught misrepresenting or bending the truth to fit the church narrative. Its all good!! Lol
@@ttshiroma not even close white never wins
@@bambbambboyguy123 you must be related to Mr Staples!!! Lol Get real partner I truly feel sorry that one has to misrepresent the truth to fit their religion! Sad!!
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. -Matthew 23:9
The last part is legendary
Is it okay to download this or convert to mp3?
Apostolic succession and papal infallibility are two completely different things lol
And your point is......?????
Apostolic succession, in Christianity, the teaching that bishops or popes represent an uninterrupted chain link line of continuity from the Apostles of Jesus Christ to present? We all know there were many broken links.
Papal infallibility? Where? So called certain supreme teachings on morals etc. by the Pope (Certain qualifiers)
@@ttshiroma Yes they are two different doctrines. To say that Jesus built a Church upon the rock of Peter, and that there is unbroken apostolic succession, does not at all mean that there is an indefinite power given to the Roman see, to appoint bishops and ratify doctrines. I think that the two were conflated in the debate by Staples.
how do we determine what an ecumenical council is
@@deus_vult8111 when the church meets together
well would I trust the popes infallibility or my own interpretation for salvation..neither ..I trust in calvary where the saviour died for me..its in the risen Lord I'm trusting..not some papal sinner
I didn't know the early church had feathers😂😂😂
Noel Orr... I didn't know they had feathers either.. Where did you read that? Can you point it out to me..im always open for proof?
@@alexandertorro
Are you serious? He was just joking!
@@jeremiahjangad5388 ahahahahah
at what time of the video did he say that?
We got our Apostolic Succession from Gregory the Great, and we have the AV Bible, the Prayer Book 1662/1928, and the 39 Articles, so we don't have to worry what Welby or Francis are saying or doing.
New to this discussion but anyone still supporting Francis or an unbroken chain of Pope's after his statement about how his hope is in the goodness of man.
Isaiah 40v13 says it all.
So by Tims logic, when the Demoniac cried out, we know you are the Son of God, he was a "pope" like Peter?
Its basically two Protestants debating.
Fortunately for James White, father Benedict Groeshel died before someone sicked him on White's anti Catholicism.
Make no difference! White us about truth! Lol
Anti Catholicism or pro truth?
If Peter is alive today, or Paul, or any of the Apostles, they would be out preaching every day, especially in this time we live in, condemning sins and sinners. But, look at Pope 🤷♂️
Lol 😂😂😭so true. Pope is like a king living his best life treated to the best going place to place like a celebrity and statesman
I looked at the Pope. Appears to be the successor of Peter.
@@TheFluteNewb Lol is this a joke?
If you think that the Pope is not out preaching every day, you're somewhat misguided. He is only one man, so he preaches to those who attend mass with him every day. And he very frequently provides teaching to the global church. So yes he does preach every day. He just does not condemn sinners which is actually following Christ's example who never condemned the sinners, Christ only condemned the sins.
@A saph V you can dance around it all you want, but Jesus built his church on Peter, and you literally don’t know what papal infallibility is. Also, sola scriptura and sola fide are both the epitome of man made doctrine. Show them to me from the Bible.
But first, show me where you got your canon. The Church, founded on Peter is the only right answer. Any other answer is more man made doctrine.
1 corinthians 3.11 would contradict Matthew 16.18 if they were talking about 2 different people but they are not..Christ is the foundation and rock ,Peter has to accept this and that is what he did..
Tim Staples got destroyed. His opening statement wasn't even on topic.
I recently ordered Akin’s book the Father’s know best. Akin, pulls quotes from the fathers to establish the Roman bishop had special authority. I could grant that point, but that point does not establish the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra. I’m wondering if this subtle false equivalency is deliberate.
@@wc8048 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Mat 18:18) Infallible Authorship.
Keep away from this man's heretical comments, for you too might be found to be opposing God. (Acts 5:38-39)
“In writing to Pope Leo X, Martin Luther said, “I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity.… That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted.… Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state (like 2021), it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better.… There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body (of Christ)” (letter of Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519, more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses; quoted by Patrick O’Hare in The Facts about Luther, 356). Stephen Ray, Crossing the Tiber, Ignatius Press, 1997, p. 45.”
What's more pitiful is he doesn't have the ability to know truth when he hears it.
I'm starting to realise more just how Roman Catholic doctrines destroy a man's ability to think for himself.
Very similar to what happens to Muslims in Islam.
This verse is so true.
"...The god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, (the Truth) lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God should shine unto them."
Tim loves his Spiritual darkness, so God will leave him there until he is ready to Repent.
Hope he does one day.
Anonymous Duck: "Tim Staples got destroyed." This is uncharitable, ad hominem, and is the spirit of the Antichrist.
I love how James White cites the church fathers as if they were not Catholics.
He clearly knows the Church was alwAys Catholic yet he refuses to accept the truth.
In addition, he claims to believe in Sola scriptura, yet all he cites is the fathers not the Bible.
@Shameless Papist
You mean the martin luther that founded your religion and theology while on a toilet seat.
Luther claims he came up with justification by faith alone while he was on the toilet. He claims that it came as
"knowledge the holy spirit gave me on the privy in the tower".
Reference: quoted in William manchester, a world lit only by fire, the medieval mind and the renaissance little brown and co,1993 p 140. In fact, Luther's idea that people needed to commit real and "honest sins, seems to have originated from a conversation with the devil.
Martin Luther conversations with the devil.
Martin Luther had a preoccupation with the devil and the bathroom that is disgusting. Even protestant scholars have noted that Luther's fascination with crude subjects is disquieting. He admittedly had much interaction with the devil.
"These demons would haunt the imagination of luther who had visions, which he believed to be actual physical occurrences, of the devil hurling excrement at him and his hurling it back. Indeed in one of his many anal combats with the devil in which luther would challenge the devil to lick his posterior, luther thought the best tactic might be to throw him into my anus were he belongs"
Reference: H.W. Crocker, Triumph, Roseville CA: Prima publishing, 2001, p.237.
Luther claims he came up with justification by faith alone while he was on the toilet. He claims that it came as
"knowledge the holy spirit gave me on the privy in the tower".
Reference: quoted in William manchester, a world lit only by fire, the medieval mind and the renaissance little brown and co,1993 p 140. In fact, Luther's idea that people needed to commit real and "honest sins, seems to have originated from a conversation with the devil.
Luther said " when I woke up last night, the devil came and wanted to debate with me, he rebuked and reproached me, arguing that I was a sinner, to this I replied, tell me something new devil, I already know that perfectly well, I have committed many a solid and real real sin. Indeed there must be good honest sins"
Shameless Papist we even have early 2nd century references to the church being called the catholic church by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans in 107
Neil Lucas
Protestants say what protestants say
The church has always been Catholic, but not Roman Catholic!
Jeremiah Jangad
We are Catholic, people calls us Roman Catholic but it’s just Catholic.
Tim is very good his points are valid...50k protestant churches are not the church Jesus mentioned...
Yet Rome is about to get into another schism.
Catholic church is one....a few leave. Thats their choice. But the Catholic church is one.
God cares not if there are
1, 000,000 denominations
as long as the antichrist of
the papacy is not gathering
his millions into his unity.
@@johnyang1420 ONE under the
bewitchment of the antichrist
papacy.
Jesus only started one Catholic church. If he wanted “churches”, he would have wrote that in Matthew 16:13-19. Read the bible please.
ON MARY BEEN PRAISED AND VENERATED
Luke 11:27-28
"As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed! But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”(This is Jesus downplaying the importance of mary in bringing him to earth)
Jeremiah 7:18 "The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger" (in reference to mary been falsely called as queen of heaven shows the worship or reverence of these godess is ancient and pagan)
ON PRAYER IN GENERAL
Matthew 6:9 ""This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name" (this is Jesus teaching his disciples on prayer nowhere does he mention the importance of praying to his mother for graces or protection)
Ephesians 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people." (This is one of Paul's numerous teachings on prayer there's just no sign of rosary or mary)
ON MARY BEEN SEEN AS MEDIATOR OR AS A NECCESSARY INTERCESSOR
1 timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"
Romans 8:26 " Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words"
Hebrews 7:25 "Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them."
ON PRAYING TO DEAD PEOPLE AND ADRESSING SAINTHOOD
Romans 1:7 "To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Shows who is a saint. Its not some process the Vatican makes. Its everyone who loves God and Beleives in Jesus christ)
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Thessalonians 4:17 "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord"(shows there is no one alive in any heaven. This is paul speaking years after the resurrection of christ. 1 Corinthians 15 talks about this too)
ON WHAT IS NEEDED TO BE SAVED
Romans 10:9 "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved"(this is wjat is needed baptism is the final confirmation. No where do we see you need to be baptized first to be saved or you need to be baptized by any specific church)
Mark 16:16 "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned" (as you can see Beleiving is the emphasis and tue consequences of not Beleiving is the main topic not being baptized. When you Beleive tobbe baptized woukd be the least of problems)
Matthew 28:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”(He gave this commission to his disciples that is all who were following him. Not to any church organization)
ON THE MEANING OF THE CHURCH, WHAT THE CHURCH DID WHEN THEY MET AND CHURCH ADMINISTRATION
1 Corinthians12:13 "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (This talks about how one becames part of the body of christ and that is true his spirit. How does one receive the spirit, acts 2:38 "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy spirit")
Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them" (This is quite clear)
1 Corinthians 14:26 "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up." (This is what we should do when we come together we don't see this in the RCC and to be fair many protestant and orthodox churches as well, paul teaches we all have different gifts and different things to contribute to the growth of one another. Today the opposite is the case. Its usually one head man or gis subordinates in different branches of an organization calling the shots)
Titus 1:5-6" For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient"
1 timothy 3:1-6" This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity"(requirements for being a bishop/elder of a local congregation. No where do we see that they must not be married or celibate. This is falsehood the Catholic Church forces on its clergy(whom they call priest btw)
Ephesians 4:11 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.(Like many of the protestant churches the Catholic Church barely or doesn't recognize these gifts. Instead it has its strange hierarchical structure of priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and finally the pope who has a pagan title pontifux maximus and vicar of christ meaning representative of Christ. This is who Jesus said was his representative on earth. John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" no one man is representative of christ only his spirit. The argument of Peter is forced in. Peter was a spokesman quite alright but he never assumed any authority as head of christs church that title belongs to Christ alone Collosians 1:17-18 "And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent" Theres little evidence peter was in rome and peter for sure wasn't called papa nor did he have a papal palace not did he decree papal bulls. These are all strange to the new testament church)
Finally the churches in the new testament were local congregations with elders or bishops they did not have any subordination to rome or some pope somewhere. They only had subordination to Christ. The bishop or elder was appointed for guiding the people in the right direction.
I will do a full rebuttal on all of this if you're willing to read.
@@drumsandcymbals8779 I will, but before you do. Ill tell you what you are going to do. You will go to church fathers, you'll use the argument of authority and anything but scriptures in their context to explain anything.
The reality is what i posted doesn't need any interpretation. These scriptures in their context simply are against roman catholic doctrines. So you are basically doing a rebuttal on the teachings of Jesus his apostles and the practices amd beliefs of the new testament church as seen in scriptures. Which unlike what the rcc would male you belief are actual historical records of what christ taught. The scriptures especially the new testament is not a poem that can be twisted out of place to create any doctrine. They are historical facts and i Beleive as Christians we should follow only what christ taught as well as his apostles and not do or practice anything that contradicts that
But go ahead
@@toyosioyejobi309 alright, friend. Thank you for your willingness to hear my case. Now as for just quoting Church fathers, I will not need to on things such as Marian Veneration or prayer in general. Now as far as the how the Church handled meetings I haven't read your argument yet, and I will study for it. In fact, if you know any good sources link them. I would love to read in preparation. Now that I'm thinking, however, if I can't get an argument of substance against that segment I might reference someone else's work for a complete case. But again, I haven't read it all yet. I am in a car leaving a vacation and I will be very happy to write back in a few days.
Again, thank you for your willingness and sincerity of your case.
@@drumsandcymbals8779 That's the thing my friend. I am not one of those people with sources other than scriptures.
Infact my main argument is that the scriptures are an actual historical record or what christ and his apostles taught and that as Christians we should be true to what they taught and what the new testament church practiced that's why my only sources are from scriptural accounts of what christ and his apostles and Christians of that time believed and practiced. That's why i call all of Christendom and roman catholics to follow that alone. The scripture compilation is only a guide but above all i implore all to read the new testament from beginning to end as an historical document and account that it is in its context without any forced interpretations and observe what christ taught, did believed as well as the apostles and the Christians in the new testament. Their beleifs and practices. See if they align with roman catholic dogmas or their denominations dogmas amd then turn to Christ and obey him alone
@@toyosioyejobi309 Alright, I see. I will write back soon.
I haven't watched this but that Tim must have some balls (or no brains)
James white keep doing what you do.
being a heretic
James White said he can agree or disagree with Church fathers. And later ask us to read the church fathers. Obviously, we will find things that the early fathers disagree with him since he said he rejects some of the writings. You can "prove" any position with this type of circular reasoning.
To be fair he stated if they agree with scripture.
Man they wish Pope Honorius had never been born! …James White and William Webster either.
Almost puked when I read, and hear again now... Peter spork through Leo. Here is folks how the Roman Catholic Church was born. But, Peter thought to endure suffering, but Leo on downward, taught to fight and conquer lol
Why is hardcore scripture alone guy using history and not scripture to mainly back him up. I don't think it was Tim that got cooked. Ps I'm not roman Catholic but I'm def not calvanist. Although I don't believe in papal infaability
And why are you complaining? Isn’t history your favourite weapon? You should be glad that your favourite weapon is used!
Ah, you’re complaining because the historical lies of the Roman religion are exposed!
Maybe you should listen to the first point he made in his rebuttal period.
The church does not mean Roman Catholic Church; this should clear up a lot what you hear.
The Catholic Church (not Roman Catholic church) consists of 23 Easter churches in Union with the Bishop of Rome..
@A saph V again, there are Eastern Churches( Armenian, Maronite and Ukraine Catholic Churches etc) united with the Bishop of Rome and they are of equal dignity and rank with the Church of Rome and with each other.
@A saph V you wrote : Rome's Church= founded by Rome in AD 380. can you please elaborate!
@A saph V you know that's a myth right?
@A saph Vfirstly, the proper name for the Church is the Catholic Church not "roman" Catholic...
Secondly, Jesus did in fact established His Church and we can see this throughout the History of the Church. As you know, Jesus did not write a Bible. Instead He founded a Church, a community of believers, and out of that community (the Catholic Church) came the Bible....
So,the Catholic Church existed before 300AD.
Again as you know, Ignatius Bishop of Antioch in one of his letters, he Mentioned the word "Catholic Church".
As an open minded individual, White handles Staples. I'm almost disappointed
How did White handle Staples???
@@enniomojica7812 Staples had to resort to ad hominem, was pandering to the crowd, making excuses about the time limit, not finding his quotations, and his opening statement was a waste of time(did not say anything about papal infallibility). James showed early fathers didn't have agreement on the Matthew scripture which hurts the RCC claim that they did; Staples said there was no council unless the pope of Rome gives his approval but James points out that Pope Sylvester didn't go to Nicaea. I have a book written by a catholic called "Lives of the Popes" and it says that "significantly, the pope played no part in the proceedings of this ecumenical council." That is a direct refutation. It goes on to say "He did not convene the council (the emperor did) or preside over it (Ossius, [or Hosius] bishop of Cordoba, did. Like other bishops within the empire, Sylvester had been invited to attend the council, but he declined to do so, pleading old age." The rebuttal on the Vulgate sealed the deal, not to mention the bit at the end (if true) about Staples being bound to whatever the Pope says, ex-cathedra or not.
@ennio mojica. When you close your debate by showing *clearly* from your opponents *own* beliefs and *statements* that he shouldn’t even be defending his side in the debate you’ve won. If you’ve said little else (and *much* else was said) you still win.
Jesus healed Peter’s mother in law. That means Peter was MARRIED! That debunks the whole celibacy doctrine of Romanists!
The catholic Church believed that Peter was married. The catholic priest are married in different rites we accept that in short.
Can you please read .Mt. 19:12 there are eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can. I Corinthians 7:32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord. And married man is anxious about the affairs of his family.. Jesus, Paul were unmarried.
Celibacy is a church rules but in line with the scriptures.
@@mungzou5878 On the contrary, there is written in the Scriptures that the doctrine of forbidding men to marry is actually a doctrine of the demons!
@@jeremiahjangad5388 popes and priests used to be allowed to marry. they banned it to prevent nepotism
@@ciscodeleon4156
Still you cannot deny the fact that the Scriptures call the doctrine of forbidding men to marry as doctrine of demons!
@Beth
Celibacy by choice is different from celibacy by forbidding, which is what Vatican imposes on its clergy!
Forbidding men from marrying is a doctrine of the demons!
Within the first 3-5 minutes I was
certain that Staples is an apostate. At least he went 'kicking and scratching'.
After 20 minutes I
was too sckened by not
only his absolute confusion
and lack of linear thought,
but burdened by the
combination of his dull
intellect ( which is
duller than the poorest
child of God born of the
Spirit) his obnoxious,
aggressive, back
alley temperament,
and prideful, pragmatic
reasoning.
After 15 minutes I could no
longer withstand it. I'd sooner
have tea with Bloody Mary.
@Beth Hi Beth, really?
I was raised in Catholic
schools. Afterward I was found
by The Good Shepherd in the
wilderness of this world and
it's many, many works -
righteous institutions
and mystic cults.
Catholic: Look at how the Bible proves the Primacy of Peter.
Protestant: Look at how our traditional interpretation of history proves Popes sinned and made mistakes, with dubious pronouncements against doctrines we Protestants somehow inherited from you Catholics.
Tim proves here that even though he was a Baptist Minister he has never in his life understood Christianity
or how to become a Christian.
I listen to him on the Catholic answers programs and he still isn't any closer to understanding!
In fact he is now even further away from Truth.
That's what just being religious and thinking that is what a Christian is, will do to you.
Then he goes to the largest of all the fake religions and is more in the dark than he ever was.
It's one thing to have intelligence and understand the art of debating your religious beliefs.
But it's a completely different thing to have understanding of Spiritual truth, about which Tim clearly has none.
How can he?
He is not Born again.
He doesn't have the Spirit of God abiding in him, just the remains of the wafer god he last ate.
The closest he's ever been to any god!!!
He has absolutely zero understanding of the Bible or anything Spiritual.
But as a Roman Catholic, he is up there among the greatest.
He could even have his name in the next edition of the greatest pagan heretics of all time!
(Below all 260 odd Popes of course, and a plethora of different Roman Catholic saints and prominent writers of the cultic, pagan religion of Romanism.)
But he should at least get a mention.
Tim staples is the man
Pater Noster of deception for sure.
@@italianoetnico.calabreseve9262
Who is that sick in the mind to become a protestant, whos original founder calaims he founded hos theology and religion while on a toilet seat.
Luther claims he came up with justification by faith alone while he was on the toilet. He claims that it came as
"knowledge the holy spirit gave me on the privy in the tower".
Reference: quoted in William manchester, a world lit only by fire, the medieval mind and the renaissance little brown and co,1993 p 140. In fact, Luther's idea that people needed to commit real and "honest sins, seems to have originated from a conversation with the devil.
Martin Luther conversations with the devil.
Martin Luther had a preoccupation with the devil and the bathroom that is disgusting. Even protestant scholars have noted that Luther's fascination with crude subjects is disquieting. He admittedly had much interaction with the devil.
"These demons would haunt the imagination of luther who had visions, which he believed to be actual physical occurrences, of the devil hurling excrement at him and his hurling it back. Indeed in one of his many anal combats with the devil in which luther would challenge the devil to lick his posterior, luther thought the best tactic might be to throw him into my anus were he belongs"
Reference: H.W. Crocker, Triumph, Roseville CA: Prima publishing, 2001, p.237.
Luther claims he came up with justification by faith alone while he was on the toilet. He claims that it came as
"knowledge the holy spirit gave me on the privy in the tower".
Reference: quoted in William manchester, a world lit only by fire, the medieval mind and the renaissance little brown and co,1993 p 140. In fact, Luther's idea that people needed to commit real and "honest sins, seems to have originated from a conversation with the devil.
Luther said " when I woke up last night, the devil came and wanted to debate with me, he rebuked and reproached me, arguing that I was a sinner, to this I replied, tell me something new devil, I already know that perfectly well, I have committed many a solid and real real sin. Indeed there must be good honest sins"
Tim is all about truth. Stop trying to deny the existence of the Catholic church.
Asaph...you wearing your tin foil hat again? Lol!!! Take a selfie and post it here!!!!
It is amazing how stupid Asaph is.
Tim got cooked!!
Davian James yes he did lol
Wgaither1
James sure served him dinner lol
James white appeal to the Tradition to defend his position.. RIP sola scriptura 😂
Eric Calson you clearly don’t know what Sola Scriptura means lol ( typical of most uninformed people).
No
Yep the pope is infallible he says atheists are going to heaven lol
Infallibility doesn't apply in every circumstance, only when speaking ''ex cathedra''. A bit like not everything St. Paul or St. Peter said were infallible except when inspired to write the scriptures.
@@ericgatera7149 excuses excuses. If the head of the Catholic church doesn't know that the Word of God teaches that no one comes to the Father except by coming Through Jesus Christ, then what is the point? We might as well all give up Christ because even non believers will go to heaven. There is no excuse for such heresy.
@@robinjoseph4949 This is not an excuse, but rightly understanding what words means. Ex Cathedra is limited to the official teaching authority and not in personal opinions.
Protestants attacking straw men and claiming victory.... yawn....what's new. The conditions for an exercise of Papal Infallibility are very restricted; if you're going to be a heretic at least know what the One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church teaches before arguing your heresy.
Keep up with "Sola Scriptura" and the contradictions that that position entails.
@@ericgatera7149 Francis ? The guy is anti Christian according to the broadest definition of orthodox. If he is the head of the universal Church someone turn the lights out.
The Papists commenting on this are especially trollish and blind.
Barely Protestant and correct 🤣
@A saph V You've been listening to too many echo chambers my friend.