Why this ROMAN CATHOLIC became PRESBYTERIAN (w/ Tim Kauffman) 

“… God PUNISHED His Son so that He would not have to punish me so that He may be just and the justifier to those that believe it…” - this is FALSE teaching! - Where is this in the Bible? If the pastor was preaching this from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, it sure is not there!

How can you trust a God who would do that?

@@grmalinda6251 You wrote: "How can you trust a God who would do that?" I assume you refer to God punishing His Son so that He would not have to punish us? This is the heart of the Gospel, the Good News, of Jesus' propitiation on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. We are sinners and we deserve to be sent away from God's Presence forever. But God loves us so much, He incarnated and lived as a man so He could give up His mortal life and take the punishment off of us. Jesus suffered on the cross not only physically, but emotionally and spiritually; that is why He said, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" when He was made the bearer of our sins for our sake. 2Cor 5:21 _"For our sake he (the Father) made him (Jesus) _*_to be sin_*_ who knew no sin, so that _*_in him we might become the righteousness_*_ of God."_ John 3:16 _“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."_ No greater love could we see than what God did for us. Remember, Jesus is God. The triune God chose to humble Himself and be born of a virgin and live as a human, so He could redeem us and do for us what we could not do for ourselves. Because we could not become righteous in any other way, _God chose to give Himself_ so that He could account His righteousness to us. How can we _not_ trust a God who shows us such great love?

@rexlion4510 Tim Kauffman states @ time 13:25 “… God PUNISHED His Son so that He would not have to punish me so that He may be just and the justifier to those that believe it…” - this is FALSE teaching! - Where is this in the Bible? If the pastor was preaching this from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, it sure is not there!

2 Corinthians 5:21-"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

@@Legionxciv what does it mean to make him to be sin? Is that honest? How?

Who cares

Whether you did or didn't doesn't change the truth.

@@dankmatter3068 He already rejected the truth.

@@steveb5331 Exactly my point, but I hope he comes back.

Tim Kauffman disseminates false teaching by saying at time 13:25-13:40 “… God PUNISHED His Son so that He would not have to punish me so that He may be just and the justifier to those that believe it…” - this is FALSE teaching! - Where is this in the Bible? If the pastor was preaching this from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, it sure is not there!

Mr. Kauffmann is sadly ignorant when it comes to Catholic doctrine.

@@alhilford2345 Did you want to substantiate that? orrrrrr

@@alhilford2345In what way is he “sadly ignorant“?

@@melodysledgister2468 He left The Mystical Body Of Christ, doesn't matter why he did, what matters is he left the church of Jesus, established 2000 years ago. I hope he comes back of course soon before it's too late.

He is one big MISINFORMANT for sure

Tim Kauffman disseminates false teaching by saying at time 13:25-13:40 “… God PUNISHED His Son so that He would not have to punish me so that He may be just and the justifier to those that believe it…” - this is FALSE teaching! - Where is this in the Bible? If the pastor was preaching this from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, it sure is not there!

@@neila1881 It was indeed the will of the Father and the Son, That the son shall face a sinners death so that the Unrighteousness may be made Righteous through his (painful) death, burial, and resurrection. John 3:16-17 16 “For God so loved the world,[a] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. John 10:18 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” The Father sent the son knowing what he would endure. The son knowing what he would endure, still obeyed the Father. Because of this we now have peace with God through Faith. 1 Peter 2:24 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 2 Corinthians 5:21 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Romans 3:21-26 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it- 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 WHOM GOD PUT FORWARD AS A PROPITIATON BY HIS BLOOD, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be JUST AND THE JUSTIFIER OF THE ONE WHO HAS FAITH IN JESUS.

You will also see Irenaeus openly criticizing the Bishop of Rome and being against his decisions (no "papal infallibility here") and saying that we should not have doctrines that does not agree with Scripture. That is a Cherry picking. Rome is was a Primus inter paris and was very respected but this did not prevent the bishop of Rome from being in the losing position of the firsts church councils

Peter and Paul. Not Peter. Not just Peter. Peter and Paul.

@@pedroguimaraes6094exactly. Very well said

Our primary source, and only infallible written source, is the divinely inspired word of God, the Bible. Irenaeus is authoritative but not infallible. What does the Bible say? Let's look. 1Co_4:17 "For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere _in every church."_ Do you see it? There is more than one visible church, and the many visible churches are (or were, back then,) teaching the Gospel which Paul preached. In 2 Corinthians Paul referred to "the church of God which is at Corinth," which implies the existence of other churches. Christ's true church transcends denominational lines and is discerned spiritually, not visually (similar to how Christ is discerned in the Eucharist spiritually and not visually). There is a visible component of "the Church," but we can't presume to say that "the Church" is limited to one denomination (such as the RCC). The RCC necessarily contains a combination of regenerated followers of Christ and unregenerated hangers-on (who are essentially Christian in Name Only). The same is true of any visible denomination that calls itself a 'church.' But if we could see with our eyes all of the people who are regenerated by God, and if we were to lump them together, wouldn't they be the true Church, and are they not made so by the power of God? Visible "churches" (including the RCC) can be visualized as a series of non-overlapping circles, arranged around a single central circle that is the Spiritual Church. The central circle has a _partial overlap_ with each of the smaller circles (the visible "churches"), but none of the small circles are wholly contained within that central circle, the true Church. If the RCC were the One True Church, then its circle would be contained entirely within the central circle; everyone in the circle of the RCC would be heaven-bound, redeemed Christians with the inward assurance (by the Spirit) of their salvation (Romans 8; Ephesians 1; 1 John 5:13). But that is not factual, and we know that many, if not most, Catholics will be damned (I've heard RC priests say the latter, so don't blast me for it). The RCC's circle has only partial overlap with the central circle which is the true Body of Christ on earth, so the RCC cannot legitimately claim to be the One True Church.

@@pedroguimaraes6094 What do you think papal infallibility is?

Protestants love to cherry pick and ignore this one

Something is very obviously wrong and ominous when the administration of this RU-vid video starts deleting comments that they probably cannot answer and is showing and proving that they are wrong!

What do you make of the following account of a Marian apparition? I quote the apparition of Mary, as recorded by St. Louis De Montfort in "The Secret of the Rosary": "Being full of grace, I am able to dispense grace freely to my children." (P. 69) "If they will only go back to the ancient devotion of the Most Holy Rosary, they will enjoy my protection. I shall see to their salvation if only they will sing the Rosary, *for I love this type of chanting."* (P. 123). This book has the Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat of the Catholic Church. But the apparition spoke falsehoods. "Mary" claims that she has the power to dispense saving grace all on her own. "Mary" claims to have power to provide divine protection. "Mary" says she loves to hear you chant the "Hail Mary" over and over and over, even though Jesus said, "when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name..." According to the above-referenced book, this Marian apparition induced demons to confess to the gathered people, "You (Mary) who are the very sure path to heaven...the Mother of Jesus Christ is all-powerful and she can save her servants from falling into hell...not a single soul that has really persevered in her service has ever been damned with us...nobody who perseveres in saying the Rosary will be damned." We know clearly from Holy Scripture that Jesus, not Mary, is the sure path to heaven. We know that the Holy Spirit is the one who intercedes for us "with groanings that cannot be uttered". We know that only God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is all-powerful, not Mary. Obviously, the apparition who calls herself Mary glorifies and magnifies herself at the expense of the one true God, and the Roman Catholic Church put its stamp of approval on it. This is why I am convinced that the RCC is not exercising good judgment regarding these apparitions. This apparition may have been a demon appearing "as an angel of light" so as to deceive people. From what Tim says about some of the other "Marian" apparitions' statements, I am highly skeptical that they are of God. 2Co 11:14 _And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light._ Mat 24:24 _For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect._

@@rexlion4510 Yes, I believe that declaring, the Creed, that is” I believe in Only One God, Father almighty …”, praying “Our Father”, Meditating in Jesus life, will give me the Grace of God…. Mary says whoever believe in God, will receive the Grace of God….. and I agree, same Grace that she already received from GOD. In the paragraph that you posted it says that Mary “claims power to dispense saving grace”, but the original paragraph only mention “grace”. So, you put additional words mistakenly. Also remember when Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, he repeated the same pray several times. In the Rosary we repeat the “Our Father”, several times…. So you believe it is not correct to pray “Our Father”? In the Rosary we declare that Jesus is the Path of Salvation, you will not find any point in the Rosary that says that Mary save, then… the Rosary is correct. If we declare that Jesus is our saviour, we will go to Heaven….. So the Rosary is CORRECT. A False Christs is someone, who does not want that I declare that God is my saviour, or that I pray the “Our Father” and sorry but you are who does not want that I pray to God therefore you are a False Christs.

Not sure how you got this out of the video: “he believed in the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ as a Catholic.” I certainly don’t remember saying that.

Southernfried, prove your assumption that the RCC is the Church Christ founded 2000 years ago, keeping in mind that assertions/claims made several centuries later by the RCC are not proofs.

@@timothyf.kauffman6527 You said it at least twice, but that's irrelevant. You are literally abandoning the Church that Christ founded 2,000 years ago to go to a religion that was derived from a 16th century novelty. Don't listen to me, but open a history book and listen to the best on both sides debate on RU-vid. Don't listen to a sales pitch from a guy that seems like he knows what he's talking about. Listen to Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, and Joe Heschmeyer debate James White and Gavin Ortlund. If you walk away from that embracing one of the thousands of contradicting Protestant sects, then I don't know what else I can say to convince you that this is a horrible mistake.

Tim Kauffman disseminates false teaching by saying at time 13:25-13:40 “… God PUNISHED His Son so that He would not have to punish me so that He may be just and the justifier to those that believe it…” - this is FALSE teaching! - Where is this in the Bible? If the pastor was preaching this from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, it sure is not there!

@@timothyf.kauffman6527Would you please expound in detail your statement at minute 13:24-1337 13:25 “… God PUNISHED His Son so that He would not have to punish me so that He may be just and the justifier to those that believe it…” and where is this in the Bible?

Tim Kauffman disseminates false teaching by saying at time 13:25-13:40 “… God PUNISHED His Son so that He would not have to punish me so that He may be just and the justifier to those that believe it…” - this is FALSE teaching! - Where is this in the Bible? If the pastor was preaching this from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, it sure is not there!

Thank you for trying to explain but your explanation does not expound or clarify “God PUNISHED His Son so He would not have to punish me/us.” In the verse 2 Corinthians 5:21 (RSV-CE) “For our sake he made him to be sin * who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”, the phrase “…he MADE him to be sin who knew no sin” does NOT explain nor support nor equate to “God PUNISHED His Son…”. Obviously, the phrase “… he made him to be sin who knew no sin…” is difficult to understand as to what St. Paul means but can be understood by reading it in context of his message in chapter 5 of where this verse was taken from. St. Paul equates human flesh as sin (this is understandable because our human nature has tendencies towards sinful acts). God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one God in 3 persons, who are all Divinely HOLY, therefore can have no sin, ever know sin, cannot be in communion or united with sin. In God’s salvation plan for us humans, who can ever free ourselves of sin, He (through Jesus Christ) willed to take on our human nature to save us. To think or teach that God the Father PUNISHED His Son, Jesus Christ, who is also Himself. Is totally a FALSE teaching, deceptive, totally preposterous and divinely offensive.

Something is very obviously wrong and ominous when the administration of this RU-vid video starts deleting comments that they probably cannot answer and is showing and proving that they are wrong!

For a moment I thought you said 'awful!'

53:00

​@@melodysledgister2468: ??

So scripture isn't good for that?

Mandy, Ignatius is not an inspired writer of Scripture. The Apostle Paul said in Acts 20: 29-31, “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore, watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn everyone night and day with tears.” Paul emphasized twice that these men would enter in even among themselves. Well as the Scriptures say, men did enter in after Paul’s departing. We call them “church fathers.” Paul also commended the Thessalonians because they “searched the Scriptures daily” to see whether the things he preached were so. We are not to go beyond what is written. We do not have to believe these so called “church fathers.” Please trust the Scriptures.

I see a bigot responded💖💖

They always do on videos like this!

The truth has to be defended. We are not "Romanists" we are Catholics. Stop being so rude.

@@javierperd2604 Why did you delete my previous comment. You afraid of the truth? All I did was state the facts.

no trolls, to clarify points that are not true.

Becoming Baptist going fully deformed.

What? This means nothing. The Catholic church has stood for 2000 years. Have we been wrong until 1500 when such an enlightened individual sent from God like Martin Luther came to correct our errors? Absurd.

@@dankmatter3068your proving the point of commiting the fallacy. Along with adding by straw manning the Protestant position.

@@dankmatter3068 If you think RC has been around 2000 years, you're a baby Christian and need to step outside your 3rd grade dogmas.

@@vigilantezack Our pope goes back to St. Peter, and all our bishops our successors of the apostles and go back to them, we have saints all throught the ages as well as miracles, as well as a 2 millenia tradition. I don't appreciate your rudeness, but God bless and I love you!

What lose? The Lord Jesus has a finished and complete Sacrifice, offered only once according to God's Word. There is no commandment to any men to offer what has already been completed.

@@truthisbeautiful7492 I don't think you understand. He left Jesus for a man made church.

Amen!

@truthisbeautiful7492 He apostatized from the one true faith, and is now in the outer darkness of the Protestant wasteland… it’s a loss

@@dankmatter3068 how did he 'leave Jesus'? The Lord Jesus is truly God and truly Man who lived a perfect life and died in the cross for sinners and rose physically from the dead and He ascended into Heaven. His true human body is in Heaven and He is everywhere present by His Divinity. The Lord Jesus taught that 'He who believes in Him is not condemned' - so on what basis do you disagree with the Lord Jesus Christ who is God Almighty? Not even the church of Rome claims that only those in their organization are Christians, as they condemned Feenayism. Are you a Fennyite? 1 Corinthians chapter 11 says that Christians break bread. The Scripture says bread, not 'accidents of bread.' will you read it?

He explains of the Eucharist in great detail at 15:40. He didn’t miss it. You may disagree with him, but I suspect you haven’t watched the whole video. See also 45:30.

You should watch the interview. He has very thoughtful responses.

@@katej910 May be true, however leaving The Mystical Body of Christ, The Catholic Church, started by Our Jesus, is never the answer. Many leave nowadays because it gets hard, or their seems to be an apostasy, however this was all prophesized by Our Blessed Mother for centuries. The Church must go through her passion before her resurrection, I believe we are around the part where Peter denies Jesus 3 times. Jesus is truly present in The Holy Eucharist.

Protestantism does, in fact, consist of many traditions and many churches... because "Protestantism" is an *umbrella term.* Just like how "Monotheism" is an *umbrella term* that is made up of many different religions and contains many different churches. Umbrella terms are simply conventions and NOT institutions. I repeat this in almost every single one of my videos. Here is a short treatment of that fact on my channel: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-amdi_4HvG2k.htmlsi=UKFpXN9vhn4Yjly2

@@javierperd2604 You ignored the other half of his sentence though

​@@javierperd2604Scripture tells us Jesus founded A CHURCH, not an umbrella term.

Are you referring to Marian apparitions? If so, then be assured that the Catholic Church does not require anyone to accept them as genuine. If it seems logical logical to you then go ahead and believe. If not then feel free to have your doubts. All Catholic doctrine is based on the teachings of Christ Himself, and there has been no new public revelation since the death of the Apostle St. John.

@@alhilford2345 Yes the highest The Church can give to such a thing as private revelation is that if I recall the exact phrasing: You don't have to believe it, but it is approved.

An honest Roman Catholic would call themselves a Papist.

I've frequently heard Catholics reference themselves as Roman Catholics (especially among themselves). Suddenly when a Protestant Christian says it towards them they feign insult and mislabeling.

His confidence was in Mary and the Catholic Church, not Jesus Christ. He says so plainly.

@@Adam-ue2ig There is nothing feign about it, it is a lie created by protestants that faithful Catholics reject.

@@melodysledgister2468 There you go! As Catholics our confidence is in Jesus Christ alone for our Salvation, not Mary. Mary points to Jesus for our Salvation, she does not claim to be a god.

Womp womp

Classic! The depth and nuance of your critique is legendary

Is that how it leaves you feeling??

As a Protestant, this is true. But that's not where Protestants protest...... the charge is that the Catholic church has moved and deviated from its divine origin. Hey, the Orthodox Church definitely thinks you have.

1) No it actually doesn't if you actually study primary sources and use historical evidence principles.2) Have you read any historical works by non Roman Catholic historians? - if so when? 3) which primary sources have you actually read? 4) why do you think the consensus of historians is that there wasn't even a monarchial bishop of Rome until the 2nd century? 5) That the bodily assumption of Mary and the invocation of the Virgin Mary didn't develop until long after the Apostles? 6) that purgatory was an innovation long after the Apostles? 7) that venerating of images according to Byzantine historians was an innovation hundreds of years after the Apostles? 8) Protestants consider themselves the Catholic church, that is, the universal Church with the Lord Jesus Christ who is the only Head according to Scripture. We don't think the church of Rome is incapable of error, as Romans chapter 11 warns that the church of Rome can error as well. You think the Pope of Alexandria is in error, and the Pope of Rome is an error as well. 9) can you name one church father that you agree with everything they wrote?

10) We worship the Holy Trinity and believe the old and new testament. We recite the Apostles Creed. Yet the bishops of Rome spent hundreds of years calling for our persecution and death. Why?

​@@truthisbeautiful7492Regarding point 9), I think the question is a bit of dishonest rhetoric, as you cannot name a church father you agree with completely either. If you can, please name him. On the balance, the fathers agree with Rome and sound nothing like presbyterians or american evangelicals.

@@ntlearning The Protestants have no authority already given to St Peter with the keys (Matt 16:19-21) and the apostles (Matt 18:18) with their successors given through the laying on of hands. The Jerusalem council (Acts 15) is a precedent guiding other church councils on matters of faith and morals. The Protestant solas are not biblical nor found normatively or universally in church history and may be rejected. Denominationalism following upon the false principle of private interpretation of the biblical text is also not found in the bible and nor part of the church history. The fundamental flaws of private interpretation and Denominationalism contradict the four theological notes of one, holy, catholic and apostolic church found in the NT and church history. The Protestant denial of one or more of the four marks means Protestant Denominationalism is always false. The easy way to find the gospel is to note the four marks and the doctrines expressed in the Council of Trent and Vatican II, particularly in the Roman catechism and the catechism of the catholic church attached to the respective church council documents. en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Catechism_of_the_Council_of_Trent www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Predestination shouldn't exclusively be ascribed to Calvin. A deep dive into Church history will show that figures you may care a lot about did speak of this including Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo and the Apostle Paul. People didn't come up with anything because they hate other people; it is just how the bible is written and should be understood under proper hermeneutics.

I guess you believe the gate is the Catholic Church, not Jesus Christ

You show by your comment that your faith for salvation lies in your Catholic Church _membership_ and in the reception of _Catholic sacraments_ far more than in Jesus. In contrast, a true believer in and disciple (follower) of Jesus Christ trusts wholly in Jesus' passion and death as the full propitiation and satisfaction for one's debt of sin. I urge you to trust in Christ the Head, not in His body the church. Lift up and magnify Jesus the Head, not the church. Jesus is worthy, but the members of the body are only rendered worthy by their connection to the Head, through faith in His blood shed for us on the cross.

I for one, have faith in The Lord Jesus Christ for my salvation, whose body is true food, and blood is true drink for my salvation. Not some bastardized, inconsistent yet somehow “infallible” bishopric.

If Vatican 2 literally says we can still be saved you don't even follow your own teachings

​@@yblackie : Yes, the Church teaches that Jesus is the only way to heaven, but Our Lord gave us the Catholic Church as an aid to our Salvation. Is it a good idea to reject His help?

You say that you can see, but you are blind. Just like the Pharisees of Christ's day, you are steeped in your man-made traditions.

That's not an argument

​@@rexlion4510: Why don't you name some of those man-made traditions for us...

emersonlopes is right. This man is simply displaying his ignorance of Catholic Church doctrine. Either he's really dumb or he's deliberately lying.

@@rexlion4510 The Catholic Church is divinely instituted.

“The Bible was not intended to be a mystery that we cannot understand; but rather was intended to be God’s revelation in understandable language.” 21:30 Why would God shroud His Word in confusion? His Word is life. His plan of salvation is only a mystery to those who are perishing. “The Bible was written for us that we may have an understanding.” 22:18

Therefore sola scriptura is untenable

​@@melodysledgister2468Isn't your reply based on your own interpretation of Protestant doctrine made through the lens of your belief in Catholic doctrines. How can you say that none agree in Protestantism when we all agree Catholicism is wrong. If there is so much difficulty in knowing something in Protestantism to be true how do we all who as autonomous bodies with united voice say Catholicism is wrong. We discuss doctrine and strive to know the truth and disagree but honestly are seeking to find where the truth lies. We discuss Catholic doctrine and with one voice across all denominations believe Catholic dogmas are wrong.

​@@jeffreytan5840 Prove it is the fault of Sola Scriptura Why not agree with reality that total human agreement on anything is untenable. This does not mean truth can't be found or all is lost to relativism.

Protestants don’t agree if baptism saves. 100 years ago ALL Protestants r against contraception, now? The very instance Sola Scriptura was born, heresy immediately started, Martin Luther called John Calvin a heretic and Calvin accused Luther of heresy. It is precisely humans are not capable of understanding God’s words thereby the division. For you to be in front of 100s of denominations and tell me Protestants r one shows your intellectual dishonesty. With the Bible Alone, people who swear by bible alone, swear they r guided by the spirit came up with Oneness Pentecostal who don’t believe in the Trinity, prosperity gospel, once saved always saved, Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian etc ALL swear by the Holy Spirit and the Bible alone, u tell me that they are one? They don’t even agree with each other Show me where in the Bible the basic essentials of being a Christian. Book chapter & verse. The Bible is NOT an instruction book or an operating manual. Jesus left earth with a bunch of apostles. He gave the apostles right to forgive sins, to teach his commandments and baptise all nations. Jesus didn’t say hey go write it down and then pass it down and let people read on their own understanding and create 1000s of denominations and meanings of my word.

You've not even watched the video

@@EmmaBerger-ov9ni I don’t need to lol

Did you want to substantiate any of that?

@@ScroopGroop you can do, but still there is a lot of misinformation.

@@ScroopGroop Tim Kauffman states @ time 13:25 “… God PUNISHED His Son so that He would not have to punish me so that He may be just and the justifier to those that believe it…” - this is FALSE teaching! - Where is this in the Bible? If the pastor was preaching this from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, it sure is not there! - He asserts that Marian Apparitions are demonic without proof or support of his statement and that it should be accepted as he says it. Rather, he should actually need to dig deeper into this false teaching because this teaching is deceiving and can never be from or be of God. - No correlation between Marian apparitions and Catholics not reading the Bible. Marian apparitions doesn’t say you don’t need to read the Bible. He states against Catholic doctrines and practices, historical facts before year 400’s without proof or resources to back his statement. He says that the early church fathers unanimously took John 6 figuratively instead of literally, as Catholics uphold, but does NOT show proof. He states that he will talk about it more but didn’t. …. There’s more conflicting and confusing stuff

Here are some RU-vid responses to Tim Kauffman’s arguments/teachings/Theology: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vvxR-MHcukk.htmlsi=ilOa1JXc12e1lDgp

@@neila1881 lol, you dont have a clue

Did you want to substantiate that?

@@ScroopGroop Would take hours, but who knows haha

@@ScroopGroop I don't have time to go through the entire video again, but off the top of my head - the Irenaeus Greek is a Greek translation of the Latin, the Protoevangelium of James is not Gnostic, what he called the letter of Polycarp (actually Polycrates, but I can forgive that) does not say what he says it does (I read the letter), no serious apologist is claiming that everybody was blindly trusting the Pope in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the vast majority of the stuff he claimed occurred only at the end of the 4th century can be traced to the 1st 2nd and 3rd centuries, he got the early church liturgy completely wrong (as per the Didache and multiple other witnesses), etc etc etc. That's not even to mention that the vast majority of what he said was pure assertion with no attempt at sourcing his claims to back them up, as most apologists do.

@@9box906 I guess my issue with this response is that you've done the same thing you're accusing him of. You're not backing up anything you're saying either. Specifically on the Protoevangelium thing, I recognize its not necessarily a "Gnostic Text" but it certainly contains gnostic friendly ideas, and is still regarded as a false book to be avoided, so we have no business trying to make dogma from it. You'd need to more more specific about what stuff goes back to the first and second centuries, but I recognize you said you don't have the time so we don't have to go into it. I guess I just want to encourage that if we're going to criticize someone for something, we ought to do our best not to do the same thing.

@@ScroopGroop my sources are: Irenaeus Greek: looking at the Greek sources, which are citations by church fathers translating from Latin to Greek Protoevangelium: The only reason to call it gnostic is because of Mary's unnatural pregnancy, but the only reason to call Mary's unnatural pregnancy gnostic is because it appears in the document - very circular. Also I read it Letter of Polycrates: I read the letter of polycrates and it didn't say what he said it did Apologists: I listen to a lot of apologists and not one has made that argument 1,2,3 centuries: I can't really make any specific claims here - I've read a good number of the antenicene fathers, so I have a reasonable remembrance of what they teach. During this video, I kept hearing him say that things were nonexistent until the late 4th century, and they would be things that I had read those early fathers saying. I didn't keep track of what those occurrences were, just that they occurred. I can't really be bothered to watch that whole video again to do specifics, but I would recommend you read fathers such as Clement, Ignatius, the Didache, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus to see for yourself. If you don't come to the same conclusion, maybe I'm wrong? It's what I read though. Liturgy: the Didache (

I agree. I think he really believes that he has all the facts, but his knowledge of Catholic doctrine is grossly distorted and displays his ignorance.

You want to be that condescending and rude, and still expect an invite?

Everything Mr Kauffmann says about the RCC and its teachings can be found in official and approved RCC documents and writings going back centuries. What is shoddy and lazy is your uncritical acceptance of the RCC's attempted whitewash of its past history and teachings since Vatican II.

Typical response from someone who's dogmas beliefs are challenged. He's not "wrong", he's just telling you what you refuse to want to look in to. This is like a person who is wholly convinced that 5+5=21, so when someone comes along and shows you that it's actually 10, you claim they don't understand numbers. No, the point is YOU don't understand numbers.

@ScroopGroop i attacked the merits of his arguments not his persona. Nice try. The protestant attacks on catholicism are for sure condescending...

Tim Kauffman disseminates false teaching by saying at time 13:25-13:40 “… God PUNISHED His Son so that He would not have to punish me so that He may be just and the justifier to those that believe it…” - this is FALSE teaching! - Where is this in the Bible? If the pastor was preaching this from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans, it sure is not there!