Carolina Jackson Continued

I May Feel Like Exonerating Mike Gendron, But I Won't Admire Him · A Comment of Mine Sparked a Debate · Which Went On ... and Was Censored? · Continuing · Carolina Jackson Continued · Antecedent Will, Clarity of St. Paul, Access to Apostolic Tradition

Carolina Jackson

@carolinajackson7621

@hglundahl happy Monday!!!

Jesus instituted 2 ordinances for the church: baptism & the Lord's supper. No sacraments.

I don't see confirmation in the Bible, I don't see the Catholic priesthood (after Jesus' death, we only have the priesthood of the believer and the High Priesthood of Christ). James tells us to annoint with oil someone who is ill & pray for that person. That has nothing to do with the last rites.

Confession for the forgiveness of sins is not in Scripture, just confession of sins to one another to help fight sin.

Helping my mom had nothing to do with the CC; it was the Holy Spirit convicting me of my sin: "When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment "

(John 16, 6). Before I became a true Christian, I didn't have the Holy Spirit.

Nothing impure will enter heaven, no, bc only believers will get there. And believers have been cleansed 100% BEFORE DEATH ,and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all] sin." (1 John 1, 6).

Purgatory is a medieval invention.

@hglundahl OSAS is not a new doctrine brought about by the Reformation. It's in Scripture. It's in the mouth of Jesus, our Lord.

The idea of losing salvation is self-contradictory bc the fulfillment of the free gift of the salvation of the soul doesn't come until after death. If so, it can't be taken away during our lives. Whoever is condemned was never saved before!

What happens when we sin after being saved? We suffer the discipline of God . Pls, see Hebrews 12 for that.

The Bible teaches that anyone who has put their faith in Jesus as their Savior has Eternal Life, and cannot lose their Salvation. Every single sin that they have committed or will ever commit has been paid for. Here are the 10 best verses clearly showing this from the Word of God:

John 6:39-40
1 John 5:1
John 10:28-29
Ephesians 1:12-14
Romans 8:38-39
Romans 11:29
John 6:47
John 3:36
1 John 5:13
John 5:24

@hglundahl Philippians 2, 12 is the idea of working out our sanctification, a result of our salvation. Verses need to be read in context. Paul didn't believe u can loose r salvation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@carolinajackson7621 Happy Monday to U2

"No sacraments"

The two you mentioned are sacraments.

"I don't see confirmation in the Bible,"

Acts 8.

Philip being a deacon could not confirm, the Apostles being bishops could.

"I don't see the Catholic priesthood"

Last Supper, the words "do this" made them capable of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass, which He had just made.

"(after Jesus' death, we only have the priesthood of the believer and the High Priesthood of Christ)."

John 20:21—23. He made the Apostles participants in His High Priesthood.

"James tells us to annoint with oil someone who is ill & pray for that person. That has nothing to do with the last rites."

It has. The Extreme Unction forgives sins in those incapable of confessing, and sometimes brings healing of the illness.

"Confession for the forgiveness of sins is not in Scripture,"

John 20:21—23, again.

"And believers have been cleansed 100% BEFORE DEATH"

When you are saved? How come God chastises for things committed after Salvation, then?

"It's in the mouth of Jesus, our Lord"

Where?

Will deal with your proof texts presently, first, Philippians says "work out your salvation" and not sanctification, and "with fear and trembling".

@carolinajackson7621 John 6:39-40 — I would say it deals with God's antecedent will.

1 John 5:1 — "born of God" doesn't mean eternal security.

John 10:28-29 v. 28 He speaks of his elect, of those whom he called by a special Providence and mercy, whom he blessed with more than ordinary graces, and with the gift of final perseverance to the end in his grace. (Witham)

Ephesians 1:12-14 — certainly mention of the life in grace, of Redemption, but none of OSAS

Romans 8:38-39 — True of "us" collectively, and of each elect. Not true of all believers individually.

Romans 11:29 — God's election of certain Jews to become Christians is the context. Not any gift of grace being equal to final perseverance.

John 6:47 — everlasting life is the life of God in him who is in the state of grace. Does not mean he cannot lose the everlasting life prior to dying.

John 3:36 — dito, and in the same chapter, "believing" is defined as involving obeying.

1 John 5:13 — collectively.

John 5:24 — "believing is defined as involving obeying.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl What did an OT priest do? He was a mediator between God & the pple. He offered sacrifices on behalf of the pple for the forgiveness of their sins.

Since Jesus' attoning death is the ultimate sacrifice for our sins & no more sacrifices are needed, no more priests are needed either: ".But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. " (Hebrews 10, 12)

The tearing of the veil of the temple when Jesus died is a clear symbol that now we all have direct access to God for the forgiveness of sins.
The destruction of the temple by Titus in 70 aD leaves no mistake to the fact that sacrifices can not even be performed.

Also, the Catholic priesthood is a wrong understanding of the priesthood of Melchisedec. Melchisedec was eternal:

"Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever."
(Hebrews 7, 3)
A Catholic priest is not eternal.

Look, I know u & I will never agree with this topic of PRIESTHOOD. I suggest we drop it.

God does not punish His children, those who are saved. He disciplines us, what is not the same. He does not punish us bc He already punished Jesus in our place. But He does discipline us OUT OF LOVE, like a parent does with his children. Discipline brings fruit: "but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it" (Hebrews 12, 10-11)

@hglundahl Jesus did not institute any priesthood during the last supper either: "Do this" simply meant "break the bread & drink the cup to remember, until I come back, that I give my body & shed my blood for you".

Baptism & the Lord's supper are not sacraments, just ordinances (something ordained by Jesus) for the church.
More later.
Even if the word salvation is used in Philippians, the idea is sanctification. Paul wrote Philippians, & he didn't think we could lose salvation, what is self contradictory, as I told u. Whoever is going to hell was never saved.

@hglundahl Regarding confession, I'm copying something that explains it better than I do:
there are absolutely no New Testament examples of anyone having his sins absolved by confessing to a designated person (unless that Person was Jesus). There are examples of public confession (Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:4-5; Acts 19:18-19), but we find no special person whose “job” it was to hear confessions (as in the Catholic Church).

Third, we DO have examples of those who prayed (or were instructed to pray) directly to God for forgiveness (Matthew 6:9,12; Acts 8:20-22; Luke 18:13-14). Jesus’ dying on the cross gives us direct access to God, without a ministerial priesthood.

Fourth, the structure of the Greek grammar in John 20:23 is rare, and important to recognize. The first pair of verbs (“forgive” and “retain”) are present tense. But the second pair of verbs, ("are forgiven" and "are retained") are both perfect tense, indicating a continual state that began before the action of the first verbs. In other words, the grammar indicates that God’s forgiving or retaining comes first, and then man’s PROCLAIMING of it afterward (based on what the person has chosen to do).

Many scholars will admit that the literal meaning of this verse, although awkward, is more accurately, “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins HAVE ALREADY BEEN forgiven,” or … “SHALL HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN.” So, Jesus was simply giving the disciples authority to announce forgiveness to people that God had forgiven already. This is not a situation where a man DECIDES to forgive or retain your sins – it is a situation in which a man simply declares / proclaims / confirms what God has already clearly stated in His Word, concerning your response to the gospel. Forgiveness depends on whether a person is repentant and how he reacts to the gospel, not on some special formula that the “priest,” rabbi, or minister uses.

By the way, a very similar type of Greek construction is found in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 concerning “binding” and “loosing.” Here again, it is NOT a case of a man deciding something and afterward, God being obligated to give His seal of approval. It is simply a proclaiming of what God has already done

@hglundahl ill answer later about Acts 8 & OSAS. BTW, U have not explained me the self contradiction of losing salvation

@hglundahl U know what the catholic sacraments do? Create a perpetual dependence for the faithful from a man they are said they need to be in peace with God.
That's a lie.
It happened during the Old Covenant. It does not happen in the New One. We have direct access now to God for all our spiritual needs.

Pls, don't believe those lies! Don't you see that the CC keeps people eternally captive there????

@hglundahl Regarding Acts 8, that has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of a sacrament called confirmation. Keep reading bc 'll explain what that was.

I was confirmed in the CC when I was 16. Believe me: nothing changed in me. I did not receive the Holy Spirit or a special anointing of it.
I did receive the Holy Spirit when I became a real Christian at age 25.
The Holy Spirit is given to authenticate true believers. “In him, you also were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you believed. The Holy Spirit is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of the possession, to the praise of his glory.” Ephesians 1:13-14

This case with the Samarians is the exception, not the norm.
In every other instance in Scripture, it seems pretty clear that the Holy Spirit indwells in a person immediately at the moment of salvation by trusting in Jesus. Notice what Peter tells the church in Jerusalem.

“Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38

Why did the Samarians have to wait to receive the HS? Because Peter had to be there the 1st time.
Peter had been given the keys to the kingdom (this has nothing to do with papacy). Because of that, Peter was present when the first Jews believed (Acts 2), the first Gentiles (Acts 10) & the first Samarians (Acts 8).
Peter "opened" the kingdom to all those 3 groups.

Confirmation happens at age 16 or 17. It's also the time when many teens stop going to church. Not logical if confirmation really brought them something.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 Before responding to the rest, any sacrament can be received sacrilegiously, or not be lived out fully, and receiving the Holy Spirit to strength is not a guarantee of never falling away.

Then again, not sure that Pope Michael II would regard your bishop as valid or your confirmation as a valid confirmation.

Plus you make lots of affirmations of what the Bible means, which are not always obvious from the pure reading of it. If I want sth like that, I prefer tradition from Apostles over tradition from Second Great Awakening.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl 1. Who is Pope Michael. 2. Scripture is the revealed Word of God, not a new doctrine or tradition. But Scripture needs to be read & understood in context. The CC is master in taking verses out of context & seeing what is not there.
The CC is not training it's faithful in reading the Word of God in context.

@hglundahl hello again, Hans. It all really boils down to whom our authority is: God or man.
The scriptures are sufficient for leading us to salvation, making us adequate, and equipping us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17). The reason why some religions want to go beyond the scriptures is because they cannot find support for their false doctrines in the only material we have today that can actually be traced back to the apostles (the New Testament). They let the "traditions" of the church fathers, or at least the particular church fathers they approve of, determine how they interpret the scriptures and which portions of the scriptures they'll actually obey. What Jesus said of the Pharisees is true of these religions today:
Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men ... You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition ... thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down" (Mark 7:6-9, 13).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 1) You can't quote them straight.

"The scriptures are sufficient for leading us to salvation, making us adequate, and equipping us for every good work"

St. Paul didn't say "all believers" but a special category "the man of God"

2) On the idea that the Scriptures are sufficient for me, I can obviously state that I find them to say sth other than you find them to say.

If it's only for "true believers" you make it Gnostic.

3) "the only material we have today that can actually be traced back to the apostles (the New Testament)."

In fact, all trace of NT to them is via Tradition and Magisterium.

4) You are too hasty to condemn. You argue damnation and hypocrisy and lack of Holy Spirit and more before showing the disagreement is a point in your favour.

Our Lord knew that the Pharisees knew they were not applying a doctrine they believed as handed down from Moses there, it was a kind of pragmatic decision.

@carolinajackson7621 I'm nibbling at the earlier stuff:

You said: "Whoever is going to hell was never saved."

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:19]

@carolinajackson7621 I missed this one.

1) Pope Michael I was elected in an emergency conclave, after he concluded "John Paul II" was a heretic and no pope, his successor from last year is Michael II (civil names David Bawden and Rogelio Martinez, Kansas and the Philippines);
2) The Tradition is not a new tradition, it's traceable as far back as the NT, and your view of context in the Bible is subjective and influenced by pastors who do have a new tradition.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3, 16).
I don't get r point nr. 1.

To nr 2, while some verses are more obscure in their meaning, the main ideas in the B about dictrine r pretty clear. We just need to believe them.
Don't understand what u mean about gnostic either.
The NT does not come via tradition & Magisterium. It comes from inspiration from God. For US.

"Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people."
(Jude 1. 3).
The faith was given ONCE to THE SAINTS, not little by little through an organization.

@hglundahl hi again! Jesus told the Pharisees that they were following doctrine that was ADDED, that never came from God. "Tradition" & Magisterium are modern examples of the same thing.

@hglundahl when I say that whoever goes to hell was never saved, I'M NOT ADDING anything: the INTERNAL EVIDENCE of Scripture shows it.
...the CC pretty much ignores internal evidence.
What Revelation 22 precisely tells us is that tradition & magisterium are addenda. Addenda just like the one condemned there.

@hglundahl 2 Popes Michael... sorry, I'm not following. Was John Paul II heretic?

Tradition is not as old chronologically as the NT. Sorry, no. And it's not inspired by God. We cannot put it at the same level.

Pastors are not bringing up new traditions, they are just reading Scripture & believing it, & resciung truths that had been hidden for just too long.
I don't agree 100% with my pastor in.1 or 2 non essentials. I don't follow any pastors; I follow Christ.

Hans, it's very simple: u have to decide whom to believe.
Open the Word of God. Read it in context. Research what u don't understand.
Blessings in your day.
Have not read yet one of r comments about losing salvation

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3, 16)."

ho tou Theou anthropos - I take it it means a specific class set apart for the service of God, not every believer.

"To nr 2, while some verses are more obscure in their meaning, the main ideas in the B about dictrine r pretty clear. We just need to believe them."

Well, why don't you believe Philippians, then?

"Don't understand what u mean about gnostic either."

If you say that, about a verse that I take as definitely X and you take as definitely not X I need to believe your judgement because you "have the Holy Spirit", that is Gnostic. Hope that's not what you're saying, but I've met that.

"The NT does not come via tradition & Magisterium. It comes from inspiration from God. For US."

Via and from are different things and via and for are also different things. The for and the from won't answer the via. The NT most definitely comes through / via Tradition (Church Father after Church Father has cited Matthew as Scripture) and via / through Magisterium, as the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo or Rome Hippo and Carthage give full lists of NT books, as well as an OT that includes what some of you would call "Apocrypha."

"ONCE to THE SAINTS, not little by little through an organization."

I totally agree about "not little by little" but are the saints or the people of God visible like an organisation?

"What Revelation 22 precisely tells us is that tradition & magisterium are addenda."

Not to the text of the Apocalypse, which is what the cited verse speaks of.

"Was John Paul II heretic?"

I think so. David Bawden thought so, when he convened the emergency conclave that elected him as Michael I, in 1990. He died in 2022, and Michael II was elected a few days less than a year later in 2023.

"Tradition is not as old chronologically as the NT."

No, it's older. Tradition is from 33, St. Matthew is from the 40's or late 30's, St. John's Gospel from 100, while his Apocalypse was from 90. The authoritative list of NT books is from 382 - 390's, councils of Rome and then Carthage and Hippo or Hippo and Carthage. Or if you prefer historic tracing, St. Ignatius of Antioch was martyred in c. 107 AD, and spoke of items which you would label "tradition" and "condemned addendum" while St. Papias is only around 150 giving a list of the four Gospels.

"And it's not inspired by God."

Apostolic tradition is defintely inspired by God.

"Pastors are not bringing up new traditions, they are just reading Scripture & believing it,"

If they think that, honestly, they are kidding themselves. In some cases they are following a tradition from the 1750's ... or 1790's ... in some cases (like believing Jesus is God, Consubstantial with the Father) a tradition from 33, a k a Apostolic Tradition, since the Reformation didn't eliminate all of it.

"& rescuing truths that had been hidden for just too long."

Cannot happen, according to Matthew 28:16-20. And Matthew 5:15. The Apostles, with their successors, could never even for 24 hours cease to teach all that Jesus had commanded them.

"Have not read yet one of r comments about losing salvation"

I thought I gave one about Apocalypse 22. Whatever the crime is about, the penalty is losing one's part in the book of life, and well, that means one had a part in it first.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl GM, sorry no: thou anthropos is every believer. Pls, don't believe that nonsense.

Jude 1, 3: the faith was given ONCE TO THE SAINTS.

Scripture is for everybody!

There are no different categories of believers for God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 "the faith was given"

Does not say "through Scripture" and 33 was the beginning of faith, before NT Scripture, and Jude was written before John wrote Apocalypse and Gospel.

"thou anthropos is every believer."

Precisely the context suggests different, since St. Paul had picked out St. Timothy from the rest of the believers.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl I do believe Philippians. I don't believe the manipulation of Philippians to make it say something it doesn't. If that verse mentions salvation, soteria, we need to see it in the context of ALL the verses about salvation, & also ALL what Paul wrote.

And because neither Paul nor the other scriptyre authors believe we can do anything for our salvation, or lose it, it has to be something different. It can be a matter of how the language is used.

Philippians 2:12, Paul is addressing believers who are already saved. He’s telling us we can work out our salvation because—look at verse 13—God is supplying us the willingness, the power, and even the pleasure in the doing of it. You see, you cannot work out what has not been worked in. You can only work out what has been worked in by God.

For example, because the Lord first worked in me this understanding of Philippians 12:12–13, now I’m working out my salvation as I write this. Salvation—which includes the blessings of healing, rescuing, delivering, and preserving—is being worked out of me for you as you read this. But I can only do this because the Lord first worked in me.

The "working out" that the Philippians are asked to do, then, is not to use their own innate abilities to accomplish their salvation, but to let God act in and through them. It reflects other Pauline thought, such as "not I, but Christ in me" (from Galatians 2:20).

Also, the idea that Jesus is God is in the Bible. We don't owe I to the CC.

U think JP II was heretical. Most Catholics, don't. The CC is not a monolithic body of believers. Not everyone agrees in everything, as they often say.

Have a nice day.
Will try to answer the rest later or tomorrow.
It really blows my mind that u put the words of Jesus at the same level than the words of Origen, f.e., bt that is exactly what u r doing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 "we need to see it in the context of ALL the verses about salvation, & also ALL what Paul wrote."

Ah, that kind of context ...

Well, they don't speak of OSAS.

"And because neither Paul nor the other scriptyre authors believe we can do anything for our salvation,"

To earn our salvation, before we are justified, mind you.

"or lose it,"

Were you referring to the kind of verses I answered earlier, did that get lost?

John 6:39-40 — I would say it deals with God's antecedent will.

1 John 5:1 — "born of God" doesn't mean eternal security.

John 10:28-29 v. 28 He speaks of his elect, of those whom he called by a special Providence and mercy, whom he blessed with more than ordinary graces, and with the gift of final perseverance to the end in his grace. (Witham)

Ephesians 1:12-14 — certainly mention of the life in grace, of Redemption, but none of OSAS

Romans 8:38-39 — True of "us" collectively, and of each elect. Not true of all believers individually.

Romans 11:29 — God's election of certain Jews to become Christians is the context. Not any gift of grace being equal to final perseverance.

John 6:47 — everlasting life is the life of God in him who is in the state of grace. Does not mean he cannot lose the everlasting life prior to dying.

John 3:36 — dito, and in the same chapter, "believing" is defined as involving obeying.

1 John 5:13 — collectively.

John 5:24 — "believing is defined as involving obeying.

"it has to be something different. It can be a matter of how the language is used."

Exactly as I did with those verses.

"The "working out" that the Philippians are asked to do, then, is not to use their own innate abilities to accomplish their salvation, but to let God act in and through them. It reflects other Pauline thought, such as "not I, but Christ in me" (from Galatians 2:20)."

Which Catholics totally agree on.

While we believe this happens while we do use our innate abilities, we also believe this is only valuable for salvation and eternal rewards once Christ is working through all that.

"the idea that Jesus is God is in the Bible. We don't owe I to the CC."

I also said "Consubstantial with the Father" ... Arius somehow thought He was God and still not so.

"U think JP II was heretical. Most Catholics, don't."

All Catholics adherring to Pope Michael II do.

The other ones involve lots of heretics, lots of ignorant of Tradition (EmberBright didn't know YEC is Tradition or thought it was due to the Science establishment n the time of the Church Fathers), and lots are ignorant about the worst things JP-II said.

"It really blows my mind that u put the words of Jesus at the same level than the words of Origen, f.e.,"

Origen is not my best go to for CCFF, but St. Ignatius represented Christ to the diocese of Antioch. St. Augustine was less heroic, but represented Christ to the diocese of Hippo. Both were taught by men who had been taught by men who had been taught ultimately by the Apostles, so ultimately about Jesus Christ.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl maybe my question wasn't clear enough. I'll rephrase it: do u believe that the Words of the so called church fathers were inspired by God? Yes or No.
Do u believe that the Magisterium is inspired Word of God? Yes or No

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 There is a distinction between inspired, like God absolutely took the initiative, and protected from error.

Any given CF and some acts of the Magisterium may say sth which was not absolutely necessary, unlike the Bible, but the Magsierium on the level "infallible" and the CCFF on the level "all of them" and probably even "all of them who said sth on the subject" are at least protected from error, like the hagiographers.

If God could do the greater thing for St. Luke, without destroying his freewill, he could do the lesser thing for the Magisterial decisions and the consensus of CCFF without destroying the freewill of anyone involved.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl Paul is telling Timothy something that is for everyone!
If u don't think so, pls remove from r NT all epistles directed to specific persons or churches.
God says in those verses, among several other things, that Scripture is useful to teach. Do u learn anything when u read Scripture????? Does that verse apply to you?
The whole NT was completed in the 1st century. The church fathers lived and wrote in centuries after. The Magisterium is even younger.
The faith had already been given 100% before the church fathers & the Magisterium.
The faith was given ONCE, per Jude, because the gospel (in lower case).of Jesus had already been given. And that.is.the.faith.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 "that Scripture is useful to teach."

And elsewhere, not everyone should become a teacher.

Some things in Scripture apply to classes of faithful more than other classes of them.

"The church fathers lived and wrote in centuries after."

Apostolic Fathers certainly lived and partly wrote before the NT was completed.

"The Magisterium is even younger."

Like AD 33 is eternally young?

@carolinajackson7621 If you pretend nothing is to specfic classes of faithful, check this:

Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.
[Ephesians 5:24]

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:
[Ephesians 5:25]

Not all faithful are wives. Not all faithful are husbands.

Carolina Jackson

@hglundahl I guess u define Magisterium in a different way than other Catholics.
When I meant church fathers, I didn't mean the Apostolic ones.

No, nowhere else are official restrictions to teach the Word of God. I already gave u 2 Timothy 2, 2, but u just ignore it.
"Faithful & able". That's all.

I'll try to make my questions even more clear:
Do u believe that the words of the non apostolic church fathers, those who wrote AFTER the 1st century are inspired Word of God? Yes or No.
Do you believe that papal ex-cathedra teaching is inspired by God? Yes or No.
Thks.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@carolinajackson7621 "I guess u define Magisterium in a different way than other Catholics."

Nope; We very typically trace Papal encyclicals to I and II Peter and Councils to Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15.

"When I meant church fathers, I didn't mean the Apostolic ones."

At what point is Apostolic Tradition no longer Apostolic? Check Matthew 28:20, not just your gut feeling!

Did you miss my answer on this verse?

And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

These men do not have just two qualities, faithful and fit, in the immediate context, they have a third, the task was later commended to them by St. Timothy. It doesn't say or imply or even imply possible they take up the charge on their own.

What's more, "all the things" would involve oral tradition, not just remaining Epistles by St. Paul.

Most Protestants would agree with us about these two items back then, just say it changed later.

@carolinajackson7621 The two questions:

"Do u believe that the words of the non apostolic church fathers, those who wrote AFTER the 1st century are inspired Word of God? Yes or No."

No, not inspired, but protected from error.

Nothing essential changed in the Church when the Apostles died.

"Do you believe that papal ex-cathedra teaching is inspired by God? Yes or No."

Acts 2, and some more speeches by St. Peter in Acts, and I and II Peter, yes.

Later papal ex-cathedra teaching is just protected from error.