Ubenedictus:



No you are Wrong again.


The books considered were about 100 the books canonised were 73, after 1000 years martin letter started the Protestant Church and removed 7 books.


You Protestants have an incomplete bible.

OK sir. I just hope that from your complete Bible, you have been saved from sin, sanctified and made ready for heaven. If not, your owning a 'complete' Bible is of no eternal benefit. Thanks.

Ubenedictus:




Do not be ignorant.

The Catholic priesthood priesthood does not consist in seminary attendance, that is simply a requirement to ensure a priest priest is well learned and knowledgeable. One becomes a priest when he is laid hands upon by the bishop and the presbytery and empowered for the priestly ministry of the new testament.


Just as Paul was ordained, so catholic priests. That is the Catholic tradition and has been observed for 2000yrs

That is not the issue sir. The issue is that conversion and right living should be basic requirements to serve God in any capacity. I think those should be the emphasis of the Church. Theological and secular education though necessary, are not as important as the life and character of a servant of God. Paul was first of all saved before he ventured into the ministry of saving souls because the blind cannot lead the blind and one cannot give what he doesn't have.

UnchangeableGod:
You said I should come back 'home'. If where I can find home is in history books including the Bible (which is the most authentic and reliable of all books), then I am already home sir. Thanks.

Don't you think the most authentic and reliable of all books should go with the most authentic and reliable of all interpreters?

9inches:


Don't you think the most authentic and reliable of all books should go with the most authentic and reliable of all interpreters?

And who are the most authentic and reliable of all interpreters?
Do you mean those whose interpretations of the Scriptures have not helped their multitudes of adherents, who have been listening to them for ages, to know the need to be born again, come out of sin and to embrace the salvation that is in Christ alone according to the first 'Pope'? (Acts 4:10-12). So what is the benefit of such interpretations if I may ask?

701ecilana:

Even you know that you are lying right now.

sorry dear i don't lie, that you do such doesn't mean i do same.

UnchangeableGod:
That is not the issue sir. The issue is that conversion and right living should be basic requirements to serve God in any capacity. I think those should be the emphasis of the Church. Theological and secular education though necessary, are not as important as the life and character of a servant of God. Paul was first of all saved before he ventured into the ministry of saving souls because the blind cannot lead the blind and one cannot give what he doesn't have.

Sir Stop shifting the goal post.

But
You claimed the Catholic priesthood is unbiblical after i showed you the new testament priesthood and its ordination, you are here talking about something else.



Who told you that the Catholic Church doesn't consider genuine conversion and right living as important requirement for the priesthood?

UnchangeableGod:
OK sir. I just hope that from your complete Bible, you have been saved from sin, sanctified and made ready for heaven. If not, your owning a 'complete' Bible is of no eternal benefit. Thanks.

I have been saved from sin, sanctified and made ready for heaven.

Ubenedictus:



Sir Stop shifting the goal post.

But
You claimed the Catholic priesthood is unbiblical after i showed you the new testament priesthood and its ordination, you are here talking about something else.



Who told you that the Catholic Church doesn't consider genuine conversion and right living as important requirement for the priesthood?

I never shifted any goal-post. The Roman Catholic priesthood is unbiblical. The errors in Catholic doctrine are too many to mention. Yes, they don't emphasis conversion from a sinner to a saint. Infact, they do not believe that any living mortal can be righteous or a saint. That is why they pray for the dead to be forgiven. They teach Purgatory, which is false doctrine. They pray through 'Mary' and the departed saints. They bow down to 'Mary's' statue. They removed the second Commandment which says "thou shall not make for thyself any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shall not bow down to them nor serve them, for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God....." (Exodus 20:4,5). To deceive the people, they divided the tenth Commandment into two so that the 'Ten Comnmabdments' can still be complete in their Cathecism.They count the Rosary in prayers, which Christ called vain repetitions (Matthew 6:7). They engage in infant baptism, contrary to the Scriptures (Matthew 3:5-16). They teach salvation by works and according to them, if your 'good deeds are greater than your sins', then you will get to heaven. What an error! (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5). They used to descourage the laity from reading the Bible on their own, that it is only the clergy that can interprete it, they even claimed that reading the Bible was making people mad but people are getting wiser etc. God delivered me, a former devoted Roman Catholic religious sinner and millions of others. I believe He will yet deliver more from this grave Institution of deception in Jesus' name, Amen.

Ubenedictus:
I have been saved from sin, sanctified and made ready for heaven.

If so, that is what you should be preaching to those who are yet to be saved. The emphasis should not be on Church membership, but on getting the spiritual experiences that will transform a sinner, who is on his/her way to eternal perdition, to a saint and then make him/her heaven worthy. Thanks.

UnchangeableGod:
And who are the most authentic and reliable of all interpreters?
Do you mean those whose interpretations of the Scriptures have not helped their multitudes of adherents, who have been listening to them for ages, to know the need to be born again, come out of sin and to embrace the salvation that is in Christ alone according to the first 'Pope'? (Acts 4:10-12). So what is the benefit of such interpretations if I may ask?

The Catholic Church is the most authentic and reliable of all interpreters.
There is listening and there is understanding. Martin Luther probably listened but lacked the understanding part.
The benefit of the interpretations? As there are confusion amongst protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists even on central doctrines concerning salvation; who then would be right in their interpretations? Or do you think the scripture is open for subjective interpretation?

UnchangeableGod:
If so, that is what you should be preaching to those who are yet to be saved. The emphasis should not be on Church membership, but on getting the spiritual experiences that will transform a sinner, who is on his/her way to eternal perdition, to a saint and then make him/her heaven worthy. Thanks.

That is not just the emphasis, speaking the truth is important and that is what i have been doing.



First i have showed you that there exist a ministerial priesthood in the new testament as Paul testify, I have showed you that it is conferred by the laying of hands and that has continued since the time of the apostles till today for 2000yrs.


Do you have the ministerial priesthood in your church? Does your church have any relation to the apostles or is it a gathering of men?


Who is Your pastor and who gave him authority to teach in the house of God.

Ubenedictus:



That is not just the emphasis, speaking the truth is important and that is what i have been doing.



First i have showed you that there exist a ministerial priesthood in the new testament as Paul testify, I have showed you that it is conferred by the laying of hands and that has continued since the time of the apostles till today for 2000yrs.


Do you have the ministerial priesthood in your church? Does your church have any relation to the apostles or is it a gathering of men?


Who is Your pastor and who gave him authority to teach in the house of God.

There is nothing like ministerial priesthood in the New Testament sir. The Bible states that "God gave (appointed) some Apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some teachers and some pastors for the perfecting of the saints............." (Ephesians 4:11-14). As such there are Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (of the word of God) where I worship. Knowing the name of my pastor is not important. The authority to preach the word of God was given to Him by God (Matthew 28:18-20). What we have in common with the Apostles of Christ is by His grace, the sound teachings of the word of God to enable sinners find the need to make their ways right by coming to Christ the only Saviour and Sanctifier and for the saints to be edified to continue with His word, in His will and by His grace be steadfast till the end (Ephesians 2:20). Of course, our gathering is that of men, women, youths and children who come in mostly as sinners and through the sound teachings of the word, become converted to saints and heavenly candidates in Christ. Thanks.

9inches:


The Catholic Church is the most authentic and reliable of all interpreters.
There is listening and there is understanding. Martin Luther probably listened but lacked the understanding part.
The benefit of the interpretations? As there are confusion amongst protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists even on central doctrines concerning salvation; who then would be right in their interpretations? Or do you think the scripture is open for subjective interpretation?

You claim that the Catholic Church is the 'most authentic and reliable of all interpreters'. My question then is that if so, why are there billions of people in the Church who are yet to benefit from such interpretations of the Bible to come out of sin and into Christ? I was there and I know many who were there and remained sinners for decades only to join those, who according to you are not qualified to interpreted the word, yet got converted, within days or months, some even within hours. As I type, there are millions, if not billions of devoted Roman Catholics, some highly placed in the Church, who are deep in sin and occultism, with all the 'authentic and reliable interpretations' (though there are sinners in all congregations). Sentiment aside, don't you think something must be wrong with such 'authentic and reliable interpreters' or the manner of such interpretations? If our so-called authentic and reliable interpretations do not help people out of sin to know the Saviour and be on the way to heaven, how authentic and reliable is that and of what benefit is that to them? So according to you, the multudes of sinners in the Church who listen to your 'authentic and reliable interpretations' lack understanding but once some of them get to some other places of worship where the interpreters are not authentic and reliable, their understanding comes back and they get saved. Let me tell you sir: There is no two ways about salvation and there is no confusion about it. As a sinner acknowledges of his sins, genuinely repents and accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour, he will be saved. There is no other interpretation. A sinner is not a Christian and s Christian is not a sinner. Thank you.

UnchangeableGod:
You claim that the Catholic Church is the 'most authentic and reliable of all interpreters'. My question then is that if so, why are there billions of people in the Church who are yet to benefit from such interpretations of the Bible to come out of sin and into Christ? I was there and I know many who were there and remained sinners for decades only to join those, who according to you are not qualified to interpreted the word, yet got converted, within days or months, some even within hours. As I type, there are millions, if not billions of devoted Roman Catholics, some highly placed in the Church, who are deep in sin and occultism, with all the 'authentic and reliable interpretations' (though there are sinners in all congregations). Sentiment aside, don't you think something must be wrong with such 'authentic and reliable interpreters' or the manner of such interpretations? If our so-called authentic and reliable interpretations do not help people out of sin to know the Saviour and be on the way to heaven, how authentic and reliable is that and of what benefit is that to them? So according to you, the multudes of sinners in the Church who listen to your 'authentic and reliable interpretations' lack understanding but once some of them get to some other places of worship where the interpreters are not authentic and reliable, their understanding comes back and they get saved. Let me tell you sir: There is no two ways about salvation and there is no confusion about it. As a sinner acknowledges of his sins, genuinely repents and accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour, he will be saved. There is no other interpretation. A sinner is not a Christian and s Christian is not a sinner. Thank you.

By your logic, one would ask, if Christ really died for everyone's sins as He claimed, why is everyone who has heard the gospels not coming forth to claim their own salvation?

Secondly, given that students stand more chance of passing their O'levels exams in special 'magic' centers, how strongly would you be making the argument that it was their school that had failed them?

Lastly, @bolded; evangelicals and fundamentalists disagree on central issues such as baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism (is it merely a sign to other Christians, or does it have a real role in the process of justification?), whether or not one can forfeit salvation (some protestants say that’s impossible to do, others say it is possible). You all claim to be 'bible-only Christians', but which group is right?

9inches:


By your logic, one would ask, if Christ really died for everyone's sins as He claimed, why is everyone who has heard the gospels not coming forth to claim their own salvation?

Secondly, given that students stand more chance of passing their O'levels exams in special 'magic' centers, how strongly would you be making the argument that it was their school had failed them?

Lastly, @bolded; evangelicals and fundamentalists disagree on central issues such as baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism (is it merely a sign to other Christians, or does it have a real role in the process of justification?), whether or not one can forfeit salvation (some protestants say that’s impossible to do, others say it is possible). You all claim to be 'bible-only Christians', but which group is right?

So you don't believe Christ died for everyone's sins according to the Scriptures. Well, He died for mine and by His mercy and grace, I responded to the gospel message and got saved on that particular day though I had heard the gospel preached couple of times earlier without surrendering. It is the desire of Christ the Saviour for everyone who hears the gospel to repent. But sadly, some will not repent immediately while some will not repent at all. We are not robots but free moral agents - free to decide whether to obey God or not and the consequence of obeying or not is entirely ours. Faith also plays a major role. A lot of people may hear the same message, but only those who mix it with faith (that this is true and real) will benefit (Hebrews 4:2). On the special 'magic' centres issue you mentioned, I thank God that there are places like magic centres according to you, where sinners who had been long in certain religious organisations can come in and by His grace, get converted within a record time. Well, there are certain reasons why virtually everyone in some Assemblies attend church there for years without genuine salvation. One may be that the Holy Spirit Who is responsible for conversion is absent leaving the people with empty, dry religion. Another may be that the clergy or preachers are not living right to the knowledge of the congregation and as such, their messages do not carry weight. Another may be that there are so much formalism and ceremonies even in the presentation of the gospel that it hardly moves people. Also, if sermons are more of entertainment and display of knowledge, oratory and eloquence, conviction can hardly come out of such. Apart from that, where people are not challenged to pray seriously concerning what they heard, then it will not benefit them. On the issue of water baptism, it is an open declaration that one had decided for Christ. One needs to be born again before voluntarily presenting himself/herself for water baptism. Water baptism on its own, without genuine salvation does not save anyone. If a sinner repents and receives Christ and dies without being baptised in water, such a one will go to heaven (Luke 23:43). But once there is opportunity for water baptism, a born again Christian who has not been baptised must of necessity, make himself available. On whether one can lose his salvation, the answer is YES. That is why Christ Jesus said that it is only those who endure to the end that shall be saved (Mark 13:13). He warned us to remember Lot's wife (Luke 17:32).There is initial salvation (conversion) and there is final salvation(heaven). There were people who were converted but later backslided and unfortunately did not return to God before they died. Such people went to hell fire. Saul, the first King of Israel, Balaam, the prophet and Judas Iscariot are good examples. May that not be our portion in Jesus' name, Amen.

UnchangeableGod:
So you don't believe Christ died for everyone's sins according to the Scriptures. Well, He died for mine and by His mercy and grace, I responded to the gospel message and got saved on that particular day though I had heard the gospel preached couple of times earlier without surrendering. It is the desire of Christ the Saviour for everyone who hears the gospel to repent. But sadly, some will not repent immediately while some will not repent at all. We are not robots but free moral agents - free to decide whether to obey God or not and the consequence of obeying or not is entirely ours. Faith also plays a major role. A lot of people may hear the same message, but only those who mix it with faith (that this is true and real) will benefit (Hebrews 4:2).

That is the answer to your question why people easily repent after leaving the Church.

On the special 'magic' centres issue you mentioned, I thank God that there are places like magic centres according to you, where sinners who had been long in certain religious organisations can come in and by His grace, get converted within a record time. Well, there are certain reasons why virtually everyone in some Assemblies attend church there for years without genuine salvation. One may be that the Holy Spirit Who is responsible for conversion is absent leaving the people with empty, dry religion. Another may be that the clergy or preachers are not living right to the knowledge of the congregation and as such, their messages do not carry weight. Another may be that there are so much formalism and ceremonies even in the presentation of the gospel that it hardly moves people. Also, if sermons are more of entertainment and display of knowledge, oratory and eloquence, conviction can hardly come out of such. Apart from that, where people are not challenged to pray seriously concerning what they heard, then it will not benefit them.

You know what happens to special center candidates; they acquire easy passes with no solid foundation. When such candidates are subsequently subjected to further examinations, say aptitude tests, their fraud comes to bare.

As a 'bible only' apologist, can you show me where the the bible says that the Holy Spirit might leave the Church at any time?
@bolded; have they always been the case ever since inception, or would you attribute it to a our post modern world issue? Figure that out.

On the issue of water baptism, it is an open declaration that one had decided for Christ. One needs to be born again before voluntarily presenting himself/herself for water baptism. Water baptism on its own, without genuine salvation does not save anyone. If a sinner repents and receives Christ and dies without being baptised in water, such a one will go to heaven (Luke 23:43). But once there is opportunity for water baptism, a born again Christian who has not been baptised must of necessity, make himself available. On whether one can lose his salvation, the answer is YES. That is why Christ Jesus said that it is only those who endure to the end that shall be saved (Mark 13:13). He warned us to remember Lot's wife (Luke 17:32).There is initial salvation (conversion) and there is final salvation(heaven). There were people who were converted but later backslided and unfortunately did not return to God before they died. Such people went to hell fire. Saul, the first King of Israel, Balaam, the prophet and Judas Iscariot are good examples. May that not be our portion in Jesus' name, Amen.

The question was, being that there exists among protestants, the fundamental disagreement as the one I highlighted, which of them has the accurate interpretation of the biblical authors, the apostles and the early church fathers' teachings? Or is interpretation of the scripture and faith now a subjective all comers' affair?

9inches:


That is the answer to your question why people easily repent after leaving the Church.



You know what happens to special center candidates; they acquire easy passes with no solid foundation. When such candidates are subsequently subjected to further examinations, say aptitude tests, their fraud comes to bare.

As a 'bible only' apologist, can you show me where the the bible says that the Holy Spirit might leave the Church at any time?
@bolded; have they always been the case ever since inception, or would you attribute it to a our post modern world issue? Figure that out.


The question was, being that there exists among protestants, the fundamental disagreement as the one I highlighted, which of them has the accurate interpretation of the biblical authors, the apostles and the early church fathers' teachings? Or is interpretation of the scripture and faith now a subjective all comers' affair?

First of all, conversion from a sinner to s saint has no fraud associated with it as opposed to special 'magic' centre where students 'pass' examinations where they know next to nothing about what they 'passed'. So there is no bases for comparison. It is either one is converted or yet to be. If one is genuinely converted, the person himself or herself knows, God knows, Satan knows and the neighbours who knew the person's former life equally will be able to testify that a positive change has taken place. After conversion, one needs to learn more about the new found faith and God's expectation of him/her as a child of God so as to grow in faith. On the issue of the Holy Spirit abiding with or leaving the Church, it should be noted that not all gatherings where Christ is mentioned or the Bible read can pass for a Church. The Holy Spirit cannot dwell in a Congregation of spiritually 'dead' people in the first place. Secondly, continuous grieving of the Holy Spirit through sinful indulgences or false doctrines will drive Him away from an individual or a Congregation. (1st Samuel 16:14; Ephesians 4:30). It is an irony and laughable to explain away why people repent after leaving the 'Church'. How is it s Church if people cannot repent while still there? It is like justifying people leaving a so called school to acquire knowledge elsewhere. What makes that building and the 'teachers' there to qualify as a school then?

UnchangeableGod:
First of all, conversion from a sinner to s saint has no fraud associated with it as opposed to special 'magic' centre where students 'pass' examinations where they know next to nothing about what they 'passed'. So there is no bases for comparison. It is either one is converted or yet to be. If one is genuinely converted, the person himself or herself knows, God knows, Satan knows and the neighbours who knew the person's former life equally will be able to testify that a positive change has taken place. After conversion, one needs to learn more about the new found faith and God's expectation of him/her as a child of God so as to grow in faith. On the issue of the Holy Spirit abiding with or leaving the Church, it should be noted that not all gatherings where Christ is mentioned or the Bible read can pass for a Church. The Holy Spirit cannot dwell in a Congregation of spiritually 'dead' people in the first place. Secondly, continuous grieving of the Holy Spirit through sinful indulgences or false doctrines will drive Him away from an individual or a Congregation. (1st Samuel 16:14; Ephesians 4:30). It is an irony and laughable to explain away why people repent after leaving the 'Church'. How is it s Church if people cannot repent while still there? It is like justifying people leaving a so called school to acquire knowledge elsewhere. What makes that building and the 'teachers' there to qualify as a school then?

You keep building a strawman argument. The crux of the whole argument is below; address it.

9inches:


The question was, being that there exists among protestants, the fundamental disagreement as the one I highlighted, which of them has the accurate interpretation of the biblical authors, the apostles and the early church fathers' teachings? Or is interpretation of the scripture and faith now a subjective all comers' affair?

701ecilana:

Hahahahahahahahaa. You are asking very childish questions. I grew up a Catholic. My family is an Exemplary Catholic family in my very big community. From generations to this day, Our house is used as a seminary for Seminarians and priests to stay before a Parision was built.

I have priests and Sisters in the family. My Dad died a Knight. So get it clearly, am not an outsider waiting to be told the evils of the Catholic Church. While a Catholic, i never saw whatever they did as evil, just like you right now, i defended them, went after anyone who said anything about their evil, but like you said, evil is evil it doesn't matter who commits it.

You said i should google and see the sexual escapades of the Pentecostals Pastors, yes they are there and we the pentecostals are the most critical of them all, we scream at their evils and expose them. We do not hide and encourage them as you do now.

You said mother superiors prepares and cleans these kids up for priests to defile. Well this is outrageous. Pls, it's time to give me the convent's name and the name of the mother superior so that i will personally report this case to the bishop. This is no longer a convent but a porn industry. Perhaps the priests pay the mother superior for the services she is rendering. For the fact the you know so much, you can as well tell us how much the mother superior is collecting for her services.

After secondary school, i got admission into school, i made friends. It was a large crowed of friends. I was actually their Center. Amongst all of us, I was the only one who had gone to secondary school from home (Thank God for that). I was a day student. They boarded.

They went to Catholic schools all of them. Most of them became friends back in secondary school. The name of the school is MOUNT CAMEL.

Guess what? They all came out Kunk Lesbians. Cigarette smoking Catholic Lesbians. Guess who takes them as lovers at a very tender age of admission into secondary school? Reverend sisters. They talk about their first times. They talk. Girls like to talk sex.

sharap

9inches:


You keep building a strawman argument. The crux of the whole argument is below; address it.

I think you guys should leave this guy to have the final words just like i did. He runs around in a circle.
His arguments are always funny and childish.

For example, when i showed him that his 66 books bible is based on error, a creation of a man called Martin Luther , he said that he was not the one that removed the books therefore he shouldn't be held accountable. To buttress his point he quoted rev 22, 18-19. He went ahead to say that the same false doctrine of 66 books bible is enough for him.
The problem with this position is that if he believes in this error, on what moral grounds is he standing to correct Catholics whom he believes are in error.

Again observe his inability to accept responsibility for the creation of the 66 books bible without knowing that once he believes in the false bible that he should be held accountable for using the Martin Luther's creation because he is an adult. I will be held accountable for practicing my faith as a Catholic because im an adult. That is what is called the age of reason. If im enjoying stolen money with a criminal being aware of the origin, i will automatically have a share in the sin of the criminal. If i were to go with his style of reasoning, no catholic should be held accountable for anything because they were not there when everything was done.

Not being satisfied that i pointed out that he was using a fake bible, he said that someone told him that the church fathers canonized 66 books after praying and bla, bla without telling us the church fathers who did that. When i told him he was lying, he claimed ignorance and said that someone told him. I even showed him a link to prove my case. He promised to show me a link where church fathers canonized 66 books but he has not done so till this moment, and he will never do so because it doesn't exist.

The point is, is this guy at his age really ignorant of where his Bible came from? I find this hard to believe. If he is ignorant indeed, i wonder what his church and friends are teaching him because this is simple history. It needs no interpretations like the bible.

He said Catholics are practicing false doctrine but his doctrines are based on one big false doctrine of 66 books bible.

He said that the Holy Spirit has left the Catholic Church because of false doctrines. He is simply saying that if you die a Catholic, you will go to hell fire because nobody can see God without the Holy Spirit.
The point is, what is the Holy Spirit doing in a church that tampered with his words. According to him, protestants are going to hell fire because they removed from the word of God (rev 22, 18-19) and continue to believe in the false bible of Martin Luther. They grieve the Holy Spirit by their continuous belief in the Martin Luther's creation.

By rejecting the word of God handed down to us by the church fathers, protestants are indirectly telling us that the church fathers and the Holy Spirit are liars.

He talked about building faith. Building faith in what, the 66 book bible doctrine? This is funny. He still believes his Bible is the right one therefore everyone must believe in it.

Sometimes, he asks questions that doesn't make sense at all, like that of the seminary. You begin to ask yourself whether God is afraid of education. Even some protestant churches have seminaries. Paul was a very educated man. He was an expert in the Old Testament before his conversion. He spoke Hebrew and greek perhaps other languages. Out of the 27 books, epistles and letters that make up the New Testament, 13 have been authored by the Apostle Paul (This does not include the book of Hebrews which some believe he wrote). Paul quoted three pagan philosophers, Epimenides, Menander, Aratus. This means that he knew greek philosophy. Only an idiot will not see how education helped Paul in his ministry. It was an added advantage.

He has refused to tell us which church has the right doctrines and why. Perhaps this will help us choose the right church.

Finally, i have decided to stop running around in a circle with the someone who doesn't even know the origin of the bible he has been reading. Allow him to have the final words instead of playing this funny games with him.

9inches:


You keep building a strawman argument. The crux of the whole argument is below; address it.

The truth remains the truth. Your name remains your name even if a hundred people call you various names thst are not yours. I don't care which disagreements exist among those who preach from or interpret the Bible. What I care about is that you and all who read this should be saved from the damnation and horror that will soon befall all unrepentant sinners. So if you are yet to repent of your sins and receive Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour, you do so today because you may leave this world sooner than you think. And you if should die without Christ (God forbid), you will regret for all eternity. Once you receive Christ, the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth. Thus, you will be able to differentiate truth from falsehood. Thanks.

9inches:


You keep building a strawman argument. The crux of the whole argument is below; address it.

The truth remains the truth. Your name remains your name even if a hundred people call you various names that are not yours. I don't care which disagreements exist among those who preach from or interpret the Bible. What I care about is that you and all who read this should be saved from the damnation and horror that will soon befall all unrepentant sinners. So if you are yet to repent of your sins and receive Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour, you do so today because you may leave this world sooner than you think. And you if should die without Christ (God forbid), you will regret for all eternity. Once you receive Christ, the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth. Thus, you will be able to differentiate truth from falsehood. Thanks.

UnchangeableGod:
The truth remains the truth. Your name remains your name even if a hundred people call you various names that are not yours. I don't care which disagreements exist among those who preach from or interpret the Bible. What I care about is that you and all who read this should be saved from the damnation and horror that will soon befall all unrepentant sinners. So if you are yet to repent of your sins and receive Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour, you do so today because you may leave this world sooner than you think. And you if should die without Christ (God forbid), you will regret for all eternity. Once you receive Christ, the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth. Thus, you will be able to differentiate truth from falsehood. Thanks.

Law of Non-contradiction: Contradictory statements (A and B) cannot be true in the same sense at the same time. Either one of them can be true or they are both false; but they cannot both be true.
It's very pertinent that one objectively substantiates a deeply held "truth", else he'd be living in a fool's paradise. In that light, it would do you a lot of good if you resolve the issue below.

Being that there exists among protestants, the fundamental disagreement as the one I highlighted, which of them has the accurate interpretation of the biblical authors, the apostles and the early church fathers' teachings? Or is interpretation of the scripture and faith now a subjective all comers' affair?

9inches:


Law of Non-contradiction: Contradictory statements (A and B) cannot be true in the same sense at the same time. Either one of them can be true or they are both false; but they cannot both be true.
It's very pertinent that one objectively substantiates a deeply held "truth", else he'd be living in a fool's paradise. In that light, it would do you a lot of good if you resolve the issue below.

Being that there exists among protestants, the fundamental disagreement as the one I highlighted, which of them has the accurate interpretation of the biblical authors, the apostles and the early church fathers' teachings? Or is interpretation of the scripture and faith now a subjective all comers' affair?

'it would do me a lot of good" if I resolve which issue? To tell you who is accurately interpreting the Bible? Is it so that you can be saved or feel happy that some groups are not interpreting the Scriptures correctly? Will you even believe that I have 'resolved' the issue? BTW, how will telling you who is right or wrong do me a lot of good? It is you it will do a lot of good but from your antecedents so far in this forum, you are not after the truth. What ever I tell you, you will still argue. So it is better you let the Holy Spirit teach you once you make your ways right by genuine repentance ie turning away from sin and unbelief and surrendering your life to the lordship of Christ. Unfortunately, you are only after arguments as if winning such will grant you salvation and right standing with God. God does not expect us to know everything. It is only He that is all knowing. But there is a simple truth that you MUST know for your eternal well being which is this: The truth is that which saves a sinner from sin and eternal perdition and keeps the saved in Christ till the end. Errors and falsehood only keep people religious but not out of sin. Those who teach the saving truth and live by what they teach are of God but those who do otherwise are not of God. The Bible says by their fruits, ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:15-20). Correct interpretation of the word of God is not an all comers affair as you inferred. It is only for those who know God, those who have made their ways right with God through Christ and thus experientially known the truth. One can't give what doesn't don't have. Thanks.

UnchangeableGod:
'it would do me a lot of good" if I resolve which issue? To tell you who is accurately interpreting the Bible? Is it so that you can be saved or feel happy that some groups are not interpreting the Scriptures correctly? Will you even believe that I have 'resolved' the issue? BTW, how will telling you who is right or wrong do me a lot of good? It is you it will do a lot of good but from your antecedents so far in this forum, you are not after the truth. What ever I tell you, you will still argue. So it is better you let the Holy Spirit teach you once you make your ways right by genuine repentance ie turning away from sin and unbelief and surrendering your life to the lordship of Christ. Unfortunately, you are only after arguments as if winning such will grant you salvation and right standing with God. God does not expect us to know everything. It is only He that is all knowing. But there is a simple truth that you MUST know for your eternal well being which is this: The truth is that which saves a sinner from sin and eternal perdition and keeps the saved in Christ till the end. Errors and falsehood only keep people religious but not out of sin. Those who teach the saving truth and live by what they teach are of God but those who do otherwise are not of God. The Bible says by their fruits, ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:15-20). Correct interpretation of the word of God is not an all comers affair as you inferred. It is only for those who know God, those who have made their ways right with God through Christ and thus experientially known the truth. One can't give what doesn't don't have. Thanks.

The question you are dodging to answer bothers on your faith and salvation. You should really consider answering it.

9inches:


The question you are dodging to answer bothers on your faith and salvation. You should really consider answering it.

You are SO WRONG sir. My faith and salvation has been long settled when I gave my life to Christ on the 18th day of November, 1999. I heard the glorious gospel, repented and surrendered my life to the lordship of Christ. From thence, my life has never been the same. The life I used to live, by His grace, I live like that no more. It is a great miraculous change caused by the Lord alone. This song comes handy and sums up my testimony: "Oh what a wonderful, wonderful day, (a) day I will never forget. After I had wandered in darkness away, Jesus my Saviour I met. Oh what a tender, compassionate Friend, He met the needs of my heart. Shadows dispelling, with joy, I am telling, He made all the darkness depart. CHORUS: Heaven came down and glory filled my soul. When at the Cross, my Saviour made me whole. My sins were washed away, and my night was turned to day. Heaven came down and glory filled my soul". I quite understand that there is no unconditional eternal security. As such, I am determined by the grace of God to hold out till the end. My faith and salvation can never depend on the truth or errors being taught or propagated by any other individual or group. Heaven is a personal race. However, I thank God for where He put me. The undiluted and enriching truth from the Bible is being taught and encouragingly, majority are living by it. Glory be to God! May you and all who are following this discussion have similar testimonies and may we all make it to heaven eventually in Jesus' name, Amen.

chipower:


I think you guys should leave this guy to have the final words just like i did. He runs around in a circle.
His arguments are always funny and childish.

For example, when i showed him that his 66 books bible is based on error, a creation of a man called Martin Luther , he said that he was not the one that removed the books therefore he shouldn't be held accountable. To buttress his point he quoted rev 22, 18-19. He went ahead to say that the same false doctrine of 66 books bible is enough for him.
The problem with this position is that if he believes in this error, on what moral grounds is he standing to correct Catholics whom he believes are in error.

Again observe his inability to accept responsibility for the creation of the 66 books bible without knowing that once he believes in the false bible that he should be held accountable for using the Martin Luther's creation because he is an adult. I will be held accountable for practicing my faith as a Catholic because im an adult. That is what is called the age of reason. If im enjoying stolen money with a criminal being aware of the origin, i will automatically have a share in the sin of the criminal. If i were to go with his style of reasoning, no catholic should be held accountable for anything because they were not there when everything was done.

Not being satisfied that i pointed out that he was using a fake bible, he said that someone told him that the church fathers canonized 66 books after praying and bla, bla without telling us the church fathers who did that. When i told him he was lying, he claimed ignorance and said that someone told him. I even showed him a link to prove my case. He promised to show me a link where church fathers canonized 66 books but he has not done so till this moment, and he will never do so because it doesn't exist.

The point is, is this guy at his age really ignorant of where his Bible came from? I find this hard to believe. If he is ignorant indeed, i wonder what his church and friends are teaching him because this is simple history. It needs no interpretations like the bible.

He said Catholics are practicing false doctrine but his doctrines are based on one big false doctrine of 66 books bible.

He said that the Holy Spirit has left the Catholic Church because of false doctrines. He is simply saying that if you die a Catholic, you will go to hell fire because nobody can see God without the Holy Spirit.
The point is, what is the Holy Spirit doing in a church that tampered with his words. According to him, protestants are going to hell fire because they removed from the word of God (rev 22, 18-19) and continue to believe in the false bible of Martin Luther. They grieve the Holy Spirit by their continuous belief in the Martin Luther's creation.

By rejecting the word of God handed down to us by the church fathers, protestants are indirectly telling us that the church fathers and the Holy Spirit are liars.

He talked about building faith. Building faith in what, the 66 book bible doctrine? This is funny. He still believes his Bible is the right one therefore everyone must believe in it.

Sometimes, he asks questions that doesn't make sense at all, like that of the seminary. You begin to ask yourself whether God is afraid of education. Even some protestant churches have seminaries. Paul was a very educated man. He was an expert in the Old Testament before his conversion. He spoke Hebrew and greek perhaps other languages. Out of the 27 books, epistles and letters that make up the New Testament, 13 have been authored by the Apostle Paul (This does not include the book of Hebrews which some believe he wrote). Paul quoted three pagan philosophers, Epimenides, Menander, Aratus. This means that he knew greek philosophy. Only an idiot will not see how education helped Paul in his ministry. It was an added advantage.

He has refused to tell us which church has the right doctrines and why. Perhaps this will help us choose the right church.

Finally, i have decided to stop running around in a circle with the someone who doesn't even know the origin of the bible he has been reading. Allow him to have the final words instead of playing this funny games with him.

Sir, I never spoke against education whether theological or secular was not necessary before gospel ministry. All I said is that conversion and right living is more important ministry. For your information, I do not know about Martin Luther or whoever and what they did. All I know is that God graciously saved me from what I heard from within the Bible. You claim it should be more than 66 canonised books. No problem sir. Are the 66 (Genesis to Revelation) not among them and are they not canonised? So long as the 66 are among the canonised, then they do not contain false doctrines contrary to your assertion. Sir, I also want to point your attention to one point - salvation and heavenly race is personal, not congregational. What counts first and foremost is one's repentance and right standing with God through the only Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. After one has come to Christ, then where to worship in order to know God more and grow in faith and grace - whether where the person worships presently or elsewhere will fall into place by the leading of the Holy Spirit. I deliberately decided not to mention where I worship because that is not the point. Coming to where I worship does not automatically confer salvation on anyone. Apart from that, there are several other places of undiluted truth other than where I worship. Christ and Christ alone is the issue. Thanks.

UnchangeableGod:
You are SO WRONG sir. My faith and salvation has been long settled when I gave my life to Christ on the 18th day of November, 1999. I heard the glorious gospel, repented and surrendered my life to the lordship of Christ. From thence, my life has never been the same. The life I used to live, by His grace, I live like that no more. It is a great miraculous change caused by the Lord alone. This song comes handy and sums up my testimony: "Oh what a wonderful, wonderful day, (a) day I will never forget. After I had wandered in darkness away, Jesus my Saviour I met. Oh what a tender, compassionate Friend, He met the needs of my heart. Shadows dispelling, with joy, I am telling, He made all the darkness depart. CHORUS: Heaven came down and glory filled my soul. When at the Cross, my Saviour made me whole. My sins were washed away, and my night was turned to day. Heaven came down and glory filled my soul". I quite understand that there is no unconditional eternal security. As such, I am determined by the grace of God to hold out till the end. My faith and salvation can never depend on the truth or errors being taught or propagated by any other individual or group. Heaven is a personal race. However, I thank God for where He put me. The undiluted and enriching truth from the Bible is being taught and encouragingly, majority are living by it. Glory be to God! May you and all who are following this discussion have similar testimonies and may we all make it to heaven eventually in Jesus' name, Amen.

Stop dodging the question. Are you scared of truth hitting you hard? Summon some courage and face it ma nigga. I have done my bit to embed it in your subconscious, and it won't go away until you explore it for truth's sake. Living in denial or ignorance will not benefit you.

9inches:


Stop dodging the question. Are you scared of truth hitting you hard? Summon some courage and face it ma nigga. I have done my bit to embed it in your subconscious, and it won't go away until you explore it for truth's sake. Living in denial or ignorance will not benefit you.

Thanks a lot sir for the insults and name calling. To be honest, you are the one in dire need - need of Christ and His saving grace. I don't bother about the controversial 'truth' you are dragging about sir. The only truth I bother about is the one which enables me me know Christ the more and by His grace make it to heaven at the end. I gave you the testimony of my salvation
(and God knows it is real). I didn't save myself and I couldn't have. It is God that did it. I expected you to give me yours, not some 'my denomination is the first and better than yours' stuff. It doesn't take anyone close to Heaven. Never mind if anybody is deceiving himself. The race to the Kingdom of God is personal. Get the real thing sir and it shall be well with you.

UnchangeableGod:
Sir, I never spoke against education whether theological or secular was not necessary before gospel ministry. All I said is that conversion and right living is more important ministry. For your information, I do not know about Martin Luther or whoever and what they did. All I know is that God graciously saved me from what I heard from within the Bible. You claim it should be more than 66 canonised books. No problem sir. Are the 66 (Genesis to Revelation) not among them and are they not canonised? So long as the 66 are among the canonised, then they do not contain false doctrines contrary to your assertion. Sir, I also want to point your attention to one point - salvation and heavenly race is personal, not congregational. What counts first and foremost is one's repentance and right standing with God through the only Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. After one has come to Christ, then where to worship in order to know God more and grow in faith and grace - whether where the person worships presently or elsewhere will fall into place by the leading of the Holy Spirit. I deliberately decided not to mention where I worship because that is not the point. Coming to where I worship does not automatically confer salvation on anyone. Apart from that, there are several other places of undiluted truth other than where I worship. Christ and Christ alone is the issue. Thanks.

You said that you don't know what Martin Luther did. Well that one is your own problem. You have chosen ignorance willingly. The point is that i know what Martin Luther did to the Bible you are using. It's history, well documented. I know how he removed books from the Bible to give the doctrine of 66 books bible.

You said that the 66 books are part of the canon. Yes you are right but the books he removed are part of the canon too. They are the sacred scriptures handed down to us by the church fathers.

You said i claimed that it should be more than 66 books. I did not claim anything because the church fathers canonized 73 books. It's history. Everyone with a little knowledge of history knows this. This is why i finfd it difficult to discuss with you.

Again you pretend not to understand my point. My point is that as far as Martin Luther has removed books from the bible and protestants still believe in that creation of Martin Luther they will share in whatever that happened to him because according to you revelation 22,18-19 have condemned them to hell fire. They will suffer damnation because they removed books from the Bible. The 66 books bible is a false doctrine on it's own because it's a product of a sin. Sin of tampering with the word of God.

This brings me to the next point. What stops someone from removing more books from the bible and still call it bible. By removing books from the bible, the protestants are telling us that we can always remove books between genesis and revelation and it will still be called bible. That is the implication of Martin Luther's action. Can protestants stand on any moral grounds to warn anyone against removing more books from the bible when they are guilty of the same offence?

You talked about undiluted truth. This sounds strange to me coming from you because the bible you are using is the diluted version which has many books missing from it. How can someone get undiluted truth from a Bible which Martin Luther created. I doubt it. Like i mentioned earlier your interpretation of revelation 22, 18-19 is quite different from my own. If one of us is getting the interpretation wrong that person is guilty of false teaching and misleading others therefore the person or the church is spreading false teaching.

Again stop avoiding the question. Tell us which church has the right teaching. The right interpretations. The right doctrines.

Like i said before, i don't which to continue with this discussion because you repeat the same thing again and again without answering any questions though you expect others to answer your questions.

UnchangeableGod:
Thanks a lot sir for the insults and name calling. To be honest, you are the one in dire need - need of Christ and His saving grace. I don't bother about the controversial 'truth' you are dragging about sir. The only truth I bother about is the one which enables me me know Christ the more and by His grace make it to heaven at the end. I gave you the testimony of my salvation
(and God knows it is real). I didn't save myself and I couldn't have. It is God that did it. I expected you to give me yours, not some 'my denomination is the first and better than yours' stuff. It doesn't take anyone close to Heaven. Never mind if anybody is deceiving himself. The race to the Kingdom of God is personal. Get the real thing sir and it shall be well with you.

Truth is truth; it has no duplicate. It's either you have it absolutely or you don't. Some human beings do profess lies sometimes thinking it is the truth. Why are you scared of putting your "truth" on trial? I only expect such behaviour from muslims.

chipower:


You said that you don't know what Martin Luther did. Well that one is your own problem. You have chosen ignorance willingly. The point is that i know what Martin Luther did to the Bible you are using. It's history, well documented. I know how he removed books from the Bible to give the doctrine of 66 books bible.

You said that the 66 books are part of the canon. Yes you are right but the books he removed are part of the canon too. They are the sacred scriptures handed down to us by the church fathers.

You said i claimed that it should be more than 66 books. I did not claim anything because the church fathers canonized 73 books. It's history. Everyone with a little knowledge of history knows this. This is why i finfd it difficult to discuss with you.

Again you pretend not to understand my point. My point is that as far as Martin Luther has removed books from the bible and protestants still believe in that creation of Martin Luther they will share in whatever that happened to him because according to you revelation 22,18-19 have condemned them to hell fire. They will suffer damnation because they removed books from the Bible. The 66 books bible is a false doctrine on it's own because it's a product of a sin. Sin of tampering with the word of God.

This brings me to the next point. What stops someone from removing more books from the bible and still call it bible. By removing books from the bible, the protestants are telling us that we can always remove books between genesis and revelation and it will still be called bible. That is the implication of Martin Luther's action. Can protestants stand on any moral grounds to warn anyone against removing more books from the bible when they are guilty of the same offence?

You talked about undiluted truth. This sounds strange to me coming from you because the bible you are using is the diluted version which has many books missing from it. How can someone get undiluted truth from a Bible which Martin Luther created. I doubt it. Like i mentioned earlier your interpretation of revelation 22, 18-19 is quite different from my own. If one of us is getting the interpretation wrong that person is guilty of false teaching and misleading others therefore the person or the church is spreading false teaching.

Again stop avoiding the question. Tell us which church has the right teaching. The right interpretations. The right doctrines.

Like i said before, i don't which to continue with this discussion because you repeat the same thing again and again without answering any questions though you expect others to answer your questions.

I have made my points very clear. If you did not agree with them neither will you agree with anything else I say. You seem to be angry with Martin Luther. I quite understand. He was a Roman Catholic priest who challenged the Church authorities over what he saw as erroneous teachings that could damn multitudes. As for allegedly removing some Books from the Bible, Martin Luther is not around to defend himself. So what you have is a one-sided history from Catholic point of view. It is unthinkable that God could save sinners and sanctify believers from the preachings read from 'incomplete false Bible' as claimed by you. A lot can be learnt from the Deuterocanonical Books or Apocrypha but their divine inspiration has been in doubt even before the advent of Martin Luther and the Reformation. Nothing stops you from reading from them but let us not miss the point. Ensure you repent and surrender your life to Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour and live right by His grace till the end. God bless you.