Christian Luper

78 posts

Christian Luper

Christian Luper

@TheLayManualist

https://t.co/5c9Vv48OsI

Katılım Eylül 2023
10 Takip Edilen3 Takipçiler
Christian Luper
Christian Luper@TheLayManualist·
You’ve omitted half the sentence. Clement says the ministers were appointed by the apostles or by other reputable men, with the Church’s consent, and that the apostles arranged for approved men to succeed them. That supports communal participation, but it is hardly a denial of apostolic succession.
English
0
0
2
21
M.J.
M.J.@MJKelleyII·
Modern day Roman Catholic apostolic succession is a lie! Get back to first century! How did Clement of Rome do it? “with the consent of the whole Church” ~ St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians,” Whole church picked their leaders!
English
2
0
1
165
The Other Paul
The Other Paul@TheOtherPaul2·
🧵 @C2Antiquity has had a bad week; my new video showed how he routinely lies and fails at basic research in his apologetics. To distract, he's tried shoveling some dirt about me. I'll here expose his lying, incl. cutting clips to exclude key context from *seconds* prior/after:
The Other Paul tweet media
English
16
9
154
8.6K
John A. Monaco
John A. Monaco@johnamonaco·
@WalmartThomist One of your random followers is probably a seminarian at the NAC who right now is asking himself if he has the guts to accept this mission
English
1
1
15
1.7K
Christian Luper
Christian Luper@TheLayManualist·
@garrettham_esq The dumbest arguments are often the hardest to kill, because generations of Baptist and low-church Protestant propaganda have repeated them into “common knowledge”.
English
2
0
12
150
Garrett Ham
Garrett Ham@garrettham_esq·
The claim that the medieval Church banned the Bible is a myth. There were 18 German Bible editions before Luther published his own. The Catholic Malermi Bible appeared in Italian in 1471. Wycliffe's real problem wasn't the vernacular. It was the commentary in his translation.
English
8
17
122
2.9K
Christian Luper
Christian Luper@TheLayManualist·
Christians can tell by whether a doctrine conforms to the apostolic deposit preserved in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and authoritatively guarded by the Church through apostolic succession. For a Baptist like those as The Think Institute, the answer ultimately becomes: “the Bible as I interpret it.” But the Bible provides neither an inspired table of contents nor a command making each reader the final doctrinal authority. He receives the canon through the historic Church, rejects that Church’s authority, and then elevates a comparatively recent interpretation above the Church that received and preserved those books.
The Think Institute@theThinkInst

What do you say, ThinkSquad? Is there any way that we as Christians can tell if we have the teaching of the Apostles?

English
0
0
0
10
Reformed to Rome
Reformed to Rome@ReformedToRome·
The whole point is that there was actually no closed canon even for Jews at the time of Christ that could be simply adopted. Jews both accepted and rejected various books (both in the rabbinic and Christian canons) and that the Christian canon was developing both NT and OT…but was never the rabbinic canon. He was sent for the purposes of engaging Jews using their books not as the basis for the Christian canon.
English
1
0
0
26
Christian Luper
Christian Luper@TheLayManualist·
Melito’s letter to Onesimus is documented in Eusebius, and it says that Melito traveled to Palestine to figure out which books were considered authentic to the Hebrew Bible. His purpose was two-fold: 1) to defeat Marcionism 2) to prove Jesus’ divinity via typology from the books recognized by the Jews. There’s debate around exactly when the Hebrew canon was considered settled and closed, but even if it was closed by the time of Melito, it doesn’t change the fact that he wasn’t listing what he believed to be the universal Christian canon, and that his canon both omits Esther and contains Wisdom.
English
1
0
0
23
Artercay ♱
Artercay ♱@theWatchfulRook·
@ReformedToRome @ProtPhilosopher Melito of Sardis provided the earliest Christian canon that we know of and it aligns more with the Protestant canon than the Catholic canon. Why do you lie?
English
3
0
0
44
Joel Berry
Joel Berry@JoelWBerry·
Been reading writings of early church fathers from the 2nd to the 5th century this morning. They all believed in a future restoration of Israel. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome... the belief that God would fulfill his promises to Israel and restore them as a nation and a people of God once the "fullness of the Gentiles was brought in" was widespread among the early church fathers. This belief began re-emerging in the 1500s as the printing press made it possible for people to read the Bible for themselves after 1000 years of the state church hiding it from them. Christian Zionism, before it was even an official movement, began re-emerging as a belief among Christian populations who actually read their Bibles. The puritans were Zionist. The devout Baptists of the 1600s who separated from a corrupt and worldly Anglican church were Zionist. The anglo saxon protestants who founded America were Zionist. Like it or not, these beliefs are baked into the DNA of America. Read your Bible. It's all right there. It's God's holy word, and it really does hold the answers to your questions.
English
495
299
1.8K
113.8K
Reformed to Rome
Reformed to Rome@ReformedToRome·
🤦🏻‍♂️ this is the type post I have to see and deal with on a daily basis. Didn’t even use ad hominem correctly.
Reformed to Rome tweet media
English
21
7
329
6.6K
Christian Luper
Christian Luper@TheLayManualist·
You’re selectively quoting Ignatius. The line you cited actually reads, “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” You left out the bishop…the very thing Ignatius uses to identify the visible Church. Throughout his letters, he insists that Christians do nothing apart from the bishop and treats the bishop, presbyters, and deacons as essential to the Church. By Ignatius’ own standard, a modern Baptist congregation with no bishop in apostolic succession wouldn’t even qualify as the Church he’s describing.
English
0
0
4
42
Pastor Rick Brennan Jr
Pastor Rick Brennan Jr@rickbrennanjr·
Roman Catholics often appeal to the Catechism of the Catholic Church to defend Rome’s claim to be “catholic.” But when the Catechism’s doctrine is examined closely, Rome’s definition of catholicity is not truly universal. It is exclusive. Begin with the early Church. Around A.D. 107, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.” Notice what he did not say. He did not define the catholic Church as those in communion with the bishop of Rome—or with any particular local church. He located catholicity in the presence of Jesus Christ among his people. The Roman Catechism begins by acknowledging that catholic means “universal,” but then narrows that universality by identifying the “fullness of the means of salvation” with communion with Rome. Section 834 states that particular churches are “fully catholic” through communion with the Church of Rome. By that definition, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and roughly 800 million Protestants are excluded from the fullness of catholicity because they are not in communion with the Roman See. That is not merely a claim to possess correct doctrine. It is a claim that Rome itself constitutes the fullness of the universal Church. Note that the ancient Fathers used catholic to describe the whole Church of Jesus Christ. Modern Roman ecclesiology uses it to describe the Church in full communion with Rome. Those are not the same definition. Rome is free to make the claim that it constitutes the the only Christian churches, but it should acknowledge what it has done: it has moved beyond Ignatius’s description of catholicity and narrowed the Nicene confession of the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” into an exclusive ecclesiology centered on the Roman See. Yes, it recognizes the Orthodox as true churches only in wounded communion, but it refuses to call Protestant communions “churches” in the proper theological sense. In other words, the Rome has defined being Catholic in accordance with Roman Catholic ecclesiology—but that definition is not what catholic originally meant.
JOSEPH MCGOVERN@JOpMCG3

By definition according to the Catechism, CATHOLIC CHURCH: The Church established by Christ on the foundation of the Apostles, possessing the fullness of the means of salvation which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 870). United States Catholic Conference. 830 The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense: First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation”308 which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia. (795; 815–816) 831 Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race: (849; 360; 518) All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God’s will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one.… The character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit. Each particular Church is “catholic” 832 “The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament.… In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord’s Supper is celebrated.… In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted.” (814; 811) 833 The phrase “particular church,” which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession. These particular Churches “are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists.”314 (886) 834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.”316 Indeed, “from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.” (882; 1369) Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., pp. 220–221). United States Catholic Conference.

English
20
0
27
1.9K
Jason Howerton
Jason Howerton@jason_howerton·
Serious question for @NickJFuentes and Catholics: How do you reconcile the thief on the cross being saved? Zero sacraments. No baptism. I’m asking sincerely. The role of the big C church is crucial, Baptism very important. But how do you explain that?
English
582
13
486
208.6K
Christian Luper
Christian Luper@TheLayManualist·
You (your AI) literally said that the Catholic/Christian canon is infallible per the Council of Trent, which was the entire point of this whole thread. I’ve thoroughly defended my views and shown how your AI’s (can’t rightfully call it your views) arguments rely on demonstrably historical falsehoods and logical fallacies. But anyways, this will be my last response. I’ve got better things to do than argue with thoroughly defeated AI-slop all evening. You (your AI) can get the last word. Have a good evening,
English
1
0
0
46
GiGi
GiGi@ChristySimm23·
@TheLayManualist @joshwhitlatch Your obsession w/crying 'AI!' is just an inadvertent admission of defeat. 😄You're basically admitting that you can't refute any facts I present. If my arguments were actually wrong, you’d be refuting them instead of crying. Thanks for admitting your views are indefensible!
English
1
0
0
29
JDubb
JDubb@joshwhitlatch·
Speaking to Catholics I’m starting to begin to think, that no matter what you tell him, they’re gonna ride or die their church, as somebody said on here the other day if Satan himself ran the Catholic Church they would still follow it blindly
English
72
1
65
2.9K
Christian Luper
Christian Luper@TheLayManualist·
Sorry, I don’t rely on AI to make arguments like you, so there’s likely to be some punctuation and/or spelling mistakes when you’re doing it yourself…not that you would know. But anyways. It was nice debating your AI-slop responses (the use of which is LITERALLY you pretending to be intelligent on social media) especially since it ceded the entire debate when it agreed that the Christian canon, and not the Protestant canon, is infallible. Have a good one.
English
1
0
0
16
GiGi
GiGi@ChristySimm23·
@TheLayManualist @joshwhitlatch "ah hominem" 😁 And earlier you wrote "illogical fallacies." If you're going to pretend to be intelligent on social media, you should probably brush up on your basic vocabulary. Pitiful.
English
1
0
0
21
Christian Luper
Christian Luper@TheLayManualist·
You’re equivocating between “canonized” and “dogmatized” while also quoting Fogarty selectively. He says the canon wasn’t definitively settled until Trent, not that Trent invented it. In the very same article he says Trent formally defined the same canon listed at Florence (1442) and describes the Church’s gradual recognition of the canon from the apostolic age. So the article that you cited but didn’t actually read argues that Trent is a dogmatic definition in response to controversy, not the creation of a new Bible. You Liberty theologians are something else.
English
0
0
0
34
M.J.
M.J.@MJKelleyII·
The Council of Trent was held from 1545 to 1563 "The canon of Scripture remained unsettled for Roman Catholicism until the Council of Trent." Roman Catholic Authority of the Catholicism Gerald Fogarty Citation Gerald Fogarty, “Scriptural Authority: Biblical Authority in Roman Catholicism,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 5:1023–1024. IN OTHER WORDS! Rome canonized their Bible AFTER the Protestant Reformation, AND the Protestants canonized their Bible AFTER the Protestant Reformation! Laymen Roman Catholic wannabe apologists that are uneducated have no clue what they are talking about. Literally Protestants can quote Roman Catholic sources as I just did, and the Watanabe apologies will still reject what their own church teaches. @CatholicDrip___ Let me guess this authority of Catholicism is wrong LOL. No, you just do not know history!
English
22
0
5
1.2K