9inches:


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.

UnchangeableGod:
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.

UnchangeableGod:
There are so many truths sir but not all are saving truths. There is only one saving truth : that Christ Jesus died for sinners to rescue us from hell fire. We do ourselves a great favour by appropriating His free gift of salvation by repentance and submitting to His Lordship the rest of our lives. This is my focus. Every other thing is secondary or a needless distraction. I don't have anything to hide either. It is just that some people ask questions not to know and follow what will eternally benefit them but to find faults or win arguments. Christ my Master did not answer all questions posed to Him directly not because He had anything to hide but because He knew the motives of the inquirers (Matthew 12:1-8; 151-9; 16:1-4; 22:15-22; John18: 33-38). May we not miss the point and pursue shadows. May we make our ways right by acknowledging and repenting of our sins and exercising faith in the finished work of Christ on Calvary. May we also continue steadfastly in Christ till the end I J N, Amen. God bless you.

9inches:


Attend to the question I raised if you're honest and brave enough. Why are you scared? Is the bible meant to be interpreted subjectively?

chipower:


You didn't make any point clear. All you are saying is " believe my bible because I say so " No proof

You said something about Martin Luther defending himself. Against what? The point of this discussion is to show that Martin Luther removed books from the Bible.

You said that what i have is one-sided history from Catholic point of view . You are indeed a very ignorant person. You amaze all the time. Even Martin Luther himself did not deny that he removed books from the Bible rather he gave his reasons. Protestants apologists don't deny that he removed books from the Bible. Historians from both protestant and neutral sources didn't deny that he removed books from the Bible. Your problem is that you refused to read.

You said the divine inspiration of deuterocanonical books has been in doubt even before the advent of Martin Luther and the reformation. If the divine inspiration of the books were in doubt why did the church fathers canonize them?. Why did the church fathers declared them sacred scriptures? The only people who doubted the divine inspiration of the books were the ones who removed the books from the Bible. These people are you people, protestants. The bible canonized by church fathers were used uninterrupted for more than 1000yrs before the protestants tampered with it.

By tampering with the bible, protestants are saying that the church fathers are bereft of the Holy Spirit and that they added books to the scriptures therefore according to you they are suffering damnation.

You can categorize the book the way you want but the church fathers declared them holy scriptures. My point is simple, your 66 books bible is a derivation from the original Bible this implies that it is a diluted version. We are talking simple history here.

Again my question is " what stops someone from removing more books from the Bible and still call it bible?" This simply means that one can remove any books he or she is uncomfortable with from the Bible and it will still
be bible.

If i remove more books from the bible, can protestants summone the moral authority to warn me when they have committed the same offence?

Let me be frank with you. We can't agree on anything because we don't use the same bible. I use the Bible canonized by the church fathers and you use the one produced by Martin Luther.

Again stop avoiding the question. Tell us the church with the right interpretations, the right teaching and the right doctrines.

Lastly, the true children of God will be revealed on the judgement day. You don't need to tell me who you are in Christ or what i need to do. I don't know you. You don't know me. It's only God that knows our hearts. You can't take exams and score yourself. That's foul play.

If you refuse to answer the above simple question, I'm afraid i will not reply again.

UnchangeableGod:
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.

Ubenedictus:


If your pastor is truly a minister then he would actually exercise priestly ministry. That is the ministerial priesthood, the priesthood a minister exercises in Service of the gospel.


But since your pastor are ignorant of the ministerial priesthood the i believe they aren't true minister.



Romans 15:15-16 --"But I have
written to you rather boldly in
some respects to remind you,
because of the grace given me by
God to be a minister of Christ
Jesus to the Gentiles in performing
the PRIESTLY service of the Gospel
of God, so that the offering up of
the Gentiles may be acceptable,
sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

That passage show there is a ministerial priesthood.

Paul received ministry by laying of hands. Act 13


Then after
fasting and praying
they laid their hands
on them and sent them
off. So, being sent out
by the Holy Spirit, they
went down to
Seleu’cia; and from
there they sailed to
Cyprus.

He called Timothy to ministry and ordained him by laying hands.


2 Timothy 1:6 Hence I
remind you to rekindle
the gift of God that is
within you through the
laying on of my hands;

Timothy then is empowered to lay hands

1 Timothy 5:22 Do not
be hasty in the laying
on of hands . . .





Every Christian is to bear witness to the good news , but the ministry to teach in the house of God isn't granted to all, it is for those who have been sent.


Romans 10:15 And
how can men preach
unless they are SENT ?
As it is written, “How
beautiful are the feet of
those who preach good
news!”

those who are sent in the first place are the apostles and the 70.

Luke 9:1-2 And he . . .
gave them power and
authority over all
demons and to cure
diseases, and he sent
them out to preach the
kingdom of God and to
heal.
John 17:18 As thou
didst send me into the
world, so I have sent
them into the world.
John 20:21 Jesus said
to them again, “Peace
be with you. As the
Father has sent me,
even so I send you.”
Luke 10:1-3 After this
the Lord appointed
seventy others, and
sent them on ahead of
him, two by two, into
every town and place
where he himself was
about to come.


Those who Jesus sent started sending others after pentecost.

Acts 13
Then after
fasting and praying
they laid their hands
on them and sent them
off. So, being sent out
by the Holy Spirit, they
went down to
Seleu’cia; and from
there they sailed to
Cyprus.
Acts 15:22, 25 Then it
seemed good to the
apostles and the elders,
with the whole church,
to choose men from
among them and send
them to Antioch with
Paul and Barnabas.
They sent Judas called
Barsab’bas, and Silas,
leading men among the
brethren, it has seemed
good to us, having
come to one accord, to
choose men and send
them to you with our
beloved Barnabas and
Paul,




So were all sent, even the pastor in my Church was sent by a successor of the apostles,

You sent your pastor? Who gave him authority to teach in the house of God?

UnchangeableGod:
I will answer you sir not because I need to prove anything. No. The Bible is not meant to be interpreted subjectively. By subjective, I believe you mean interpretation based on one's own ideas or opinions rather than the facts. The purpose of the Bible (Scriptures) is "to profit the readers and listeners as doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness so that the people of God may become perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2nd Timothy 3:16). Any other purpose of interpreting the Bible other than as quoted is subjective and therefore not according to the will of God. Thanks.

UnchangeableGod:
You are right sir. The true children of God (those who are saved and remain in Christ till pothe end) will be revealed on the last day. But one needs to be sure now not waiting for then. No one gatecrashes into Heaven. Paul the Apostle said while still on earth and I quote "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth, there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing". The purpose of such assertion sir, is not to score oneself, but to inspire others that they can be very certain about where they are heading (Heaven) even while still on earth. For your information sir, I have read the history you are referring to both from neutral and Catholic points and they all agree that certain books (commonly called the Apocrypha) are not included in the present Bible. But the rationale behind such non inclusion is where there are disagreements. My point about Martin Luther who played a major role in the Reformation is that he is in the best position to answer such question pertaining to the role, if any, that he played in the non inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Bible but he is not around. He is currently receiving his reward according to all he did while on earth and the motive behind such. The reason I don't think the Apocrypha matters so much is because they didn't play a role in my conversion, sanctification, healing, miracles l have received so far and how the Lord has kept me till now (here I go again with my testimonies). So if God could do all that for me from the provisions of Genesis to Revelation, then He must be OK with that and happy with me and others with similar spiritual experiences. I don't really know what else I stand to benefit spiritually speaking as a Christian from the Apocrypha which I am not benefiting from Genesis to Revelation. In any case there might be things I could benefit from the other Books if I have time to read them, but my not reading them certainly does not have any eternal consequences. As for which Church has the right interpretation, the right teaching and the right doctrine, I would like us to define Church first of all. A Church from the Bible point of view refers to all born again children of God who are currently living according to His will throughout the world (Acts 20:28; Gal 1:13; Ephesians 5:25; Colossians 1:18). So there is a local Church and the universal Church. Each individual Christian is member of the universal Church. Therefore all Christians in all local Churches (and there are so many) who are currently living right by His grace must be benefiting from the right interpretation, right teaching and right doctrine. So all the Shepherds of such local Churches are having the right interpretations, teaching and doctrines. God knows them ( just as you suggested) and will reward them accordingly. As for why we cannot agree. Sir, it is because obviously we don't have similar testimonies and experiences, we don't believe same thing, are not serving same Master, not pursuing same goal and regrettably, may not ultimately meet in the same place at the end of life. I pray we do and that we meet at the Feet of the Lord Jesus I J N, Amen. God bless you sir.

9inches:


Does that make the bible a sufficient rule of faith?

You see, bible-only (sola scriptura) Christians like yourself claim that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context shows that it does not claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is "profitable" (ophelimos) that is, "helpful". Many things can be profitable for moving one towards a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is "sufficient", which is of course exactly what protestants like yourself think the passage means.

The context of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. In verse 14, Paul says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them". Timothy is being strongly urged to hold to the oral teachings (the traditions) that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul's reminder of the value of oral tradition (2 Timothy 1:13-14) "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." (2 Timothy 2:2) "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also". Here, Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (2 Timothy 1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry

How shocked are you knowing this now? I would love to know your understanding of the verses- 2 Timothy 3:14, 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2 Timothy 2:2 as I explained.

chipower:


Brother, let us get one thing clear, we do not use the same bible. You mentioned "present" bible ie 66 books bible. The people who use your so called present bible are the protestants. My present bible is the original one the was canonized by the church fathers that has been in existence for more than 1000yrs. This is simple fact. A baby can easily understand these differences.

If the deuterocanonical books doesn't matter to you for whatever reasons ,that is your own problem. it matters to me because they are sacred scriptures that were removed by protestants.

If you think that you can't benefit spiritually from the books that were removed, that one is your concern. I benefit spiritually from them. The only people who don't see the spiritual benefits are protestants who removed them. The church fathers saw spiritual benefits in them but to you , protestants know more than the church fathers.

To you and i, "genesis to revelation" means different things. To you, it means 66 books. To me, it means 73 books. You are free to operate with your 66 books. Someone can remove more books and still get "genesis to revelation".

I have shown clearly that your bible came out as a removal of the word of God. You have the right to categorize the removed books the way you want. Anyone has the right to remove and categorize any book in the Bible the way he or she believes.

Whether you will suffer damnation or not if you don't accept the books as sacred scriptures is again your own problem. The church fathers called them sacred scriptures. You say they are not. You are entitled to your own opinion. You said that damnation awaits someone who removes from the Bible but you think this rule doesn't apply to you because you believe the books that were removed are not word of God.

The implication of this action is that anyone can declare more books in the Bible unsacred, remove them and still suffers no consequences.

Again you have refused to answer the questions. In summary, according to you, the right churches are ones with good shepherds doing the right interpretations etc.

For the fact that among the protestants using the same 66 books bible, there exists different interpretations, different teaching, different doctrines which one is the right church? Upon all these differences they are claiming the same thing as you, salvation, healing, bla, bla. All of them are quoting 2 Timothy 7-8. For example, your interpretation of revelation 22,18-19 is quite different from mine and some other protestant churches. How do we know the right one? Remember, any wrong interpretation = wrong teaching = hell fire .

As for your conversion expirence, it is your own personal experience. Everyone has his or hers. It has nothing to do with this discussion. I can't vouch for you on anything and you can't vouch for me also. I don't know you and you don't know me.

UnchangeableGod:
Shocked? I am only shocked that you could so soon contradict yourself. Your question was whether it was right to interpret the Scriptures subjectively. Which I answered to the negative. Here you are interpreting same Scriptures subjectively to suit your ideas and opinions other than the facts. As to the oral traditions you mentioned, they are useful in teaching godliness as long as they do not contradict the Scriptures. Every Christian leader has his personal philosophy and fancies, which he influences his followers to live by (if that is what you term oral traditions) but such MUST NEVER contradict any provisions of the Scriptures otherwise it becomes heresy. Thanks.

raphafire:

I lack words to reply u with..

NwaMary1:

well too bad for you.

she answers mine.

GrandFinale2017:
he is right. Mary is in the grave. Dead and rotten. Expecting rapture. Stop praying to dead people. Mr idolater

NwaMary1:

well too bad for you.

she answers mine.

GrandFinale2017:
he is right. Mary is in the grave. Dead and rotten. Expecting rapture. Stop praying to dead people. Mr idolater

9inches:


In case you missed it. I will repost.

I would love to know your understanding of the verses- 2 Timothy 3:14, 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2 Timothy 2:2 as I explained.

By the way, the interpretation is the Catholic Church interpretation. Therefore, it comes with authority which Christ Himself bestowed on the Church.

UnchangeableGod:
2nd Timothy 3:14 says "But continue thou in the things which thou has learned and has been assured of, knowing of whom thou has learned them". Here Paul was telling Timothy to continue in the way of God he had been taught as contained in the first Epistle as well as the second. Of course, there are a lot other things Timothy had learnt from Paul which were not penned down (which you term oral tradition). They all agree with godliness (1st Timothy 6:3,4) and did not and could not have contradicted the Scriptures. Paul lived an exemplary Christian life. So he had the moral authority to tell Timothy to follow those teachings because his(Paul's) life did not contradict his Scripture-based teachings. 2nd Timothy 1:13,14 say the same. The 'sound' words and 'that good thing' (the saving and preserving truth) all refer to Scripture based godly teachings. In 2nd Timothy 2:2, Timothy was enjoined to reproduce himself by passing on the undiluted Scripture based truth to faithful men who will be faithful enough to teach same unadulterated truth to others and on and on until Christ comes. As I typed previously, each Christian leader has his own philosophy and fancies based on his upbringing, unique experiences and personality. He would naturally want those within his sphere of influence to toe that line. For instance, some Christian leaders emphasize a type of dress code for their members, while others discourage their members from 'worldly' games/sports. Others frown against involvement in partisan politics, others maintain a system or rigid process of marriage etc. These leaders mean well for their members and such concerns are Scriptural. But that does not mean that all those who who are born again and living right, who may not follow these traditions are sinning. However, a Christian who finds himself in a fold, knowing their rules, should comply so long as it is not against the Scriptures - the word of God. Thanks.

9inches:


Finally you agree there are some teachings and/or traditions not vividly written in the bible but will serve as a useful tool in proper interpretation of some verses in the bible... And which the early Church fathers were urged to maintain IN ADDITION AND CONFORMITY WITH THE BIBLE to reveal the biblical truth. That, my friend, is the tradition the Church has maintained ever since. Once you break away from the Church which has this sort of exclusive authority bestowed on her; coupled with an almost unconditional guarantee of guidance by the Holy Spirit to teach the truth, you are prone to misinterpretation and heresy knowingly or unknowingly, which the bible strongly condemns.

Does that make sense now?

UnchangeableGod:
"If anyone teaches otherwise and consent not to wholesome words, even the WORDS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND THE DOCTRINE WHICH IS ACCORDING TO GODLINESS, such a one is proud, knowing nothing, but dotting about questions and strife of words, whereof cometh envy, railings, evil surmisings(conjectures)" (1st Timothy 6:3,4).

chipower:


First Timothy 6:3-4 does not answer the question rather it generates the question.

Which church has the right teaching, doctrines and interpretations? For the fact that among the protestant churches there exists different interpretations, doctrines and teachings from the same 66 books bible, which of the Churches has everything right. I went further to give you examples eg your interpretation of revelation 22 18-19 is different from mine and some protestant churches. Another example is that in some protestant churches wearing earing sends to someone to hell fire in some its allowed. In some, women wearing trousers sends them to hell fire in some it's ok. In some head attachments sends them to hell fire while some it's ok. I can go on and on. A primary school student will easily understand this question with all the examples i have given but you pretend not to understand it. You have decided not answer the question, simple.

From the above example, it's obvious that Protestantism does not solve the problem of false doctrines, teaching etc. They will still end up in hell fire according to you.

It's not enough for you to criticize the Catholic Church with animosity without telling us the church that's is getting everything right. For me, it's a shame on your part if you refuse to tell us.

UnchangeableGod:
You did not make any sense at all sir. Which 'exclusive authority' does the Roman Catholic Church have and who gave them such authority? Is it the authority to pray through 'Mary' and other dead people? Is it the authority to make graven images in the church for people to be bowing down to contrary to the Second Commandment? (Exodus 20:4,5) Is it the authority to baptise infants as though they have a question to answer and as though water baptism takes away sins? Is it the authority to teach that Mary had no other child apart from Jesus and that she was a virgin till death contrary to Luke 2:7 and Mark 6:3? How can God give authority to the Catholic Church or any Church for that matter to teach an inexistent Purgatory, thereby giving people false hope contrary to the statement of Christ the Way, the Truth and the Life Who declared unequivocally that there are only TWO possible destinations after death? (Matthew 7:13,14; 25:46). Is it God that gave you authority to teach that people can pay their way to salvation and pay/pray their lost relatives into Heaven?
You Roman Catholics are just being childish with all these your claim of divine authority when false doctrines are written all over you. Is your God a God of falsehood? Which 'Holy Spirit' will be guiding people teaching and practising such false doctrines leading people astray into their eternal doom? You did not make any sense at all sir. Thanks.

UnchangeableGod:
You are wrong in your allegation that I criticize the Catholic Church with animosity. What I detest is your false claims of 'exclusive divine authority' borne out of sheer conceit. Your problem is that you lump what you term Protestant Churches together and see this as Roman Catholic versus Protestants war. You are wrong sir. I am not after religious politics. Whatever I see as an error on the part of any group, including the so-called Bible only believers, I do point it out. You can check my other comments. That some so called Protestants have some obvious errors themselves is not in any way a justification of the multitudes of false doctrines that abound in the Roman Catholic Institution, yet you people make false claims to exclusive divine authority. Let me make this clear. I do not know about the Protestant Movement. I was not born during the Reformation. I am not protesting anything. All I know is that I heard the gospel, was convicted of my sins, repented and gave my life to Christ. I then decided to join the Church of the person through whom I was converted having been challenged by his exemplary lifestyle. That is why I always bring in the need for salvation because that is the crux of the matter. Once you are genuinely saved, the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth. So this your Roman Catholic versus Protestant battle is neither here nor there and I am not part if it. But I am quite sure that there are sincere people who can read between the lines and decipher what is the truth and as such decide for themselves for their present and eternal good. I am quite sure of that. It is not everybody that is blinded by religion. Everybody cannot be deceived. Thank you.

UnchangeableGod:
Sir, Romans 15:15,16 says and I quote "I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God that I should be the MINISTER of Christ to the Gentiles, MINISTERING the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost". The keywords there are minister and ministry, not priesthood. The priesthood is your own coinage to justify the practice of the Old Testament priesthood in the New Testament. The New Testament ministry has nothing to do with the compulsory putting on of particular white robes and other coloured garments like Aaron in order to minister in the sanctuary. It has nothing to do with the lighting of candles and the burning of incense. There is no dogma of religious ritual in the New Testament. There is no title as the 'Reverend Father' in the New Testament.The laying on of human hands though important, is not the point. Paul was commissioned by God having been converted from a religiously sinning Pharisee to s saint of God. The Apostles and the 70 are no more. God is still calling people to minister to others today. He can pick from the farms, streets, colleges and universities, football field, stadiums, even club houses or hotels. There is no fixed formular for God's choice or calling. But the basic thing is that they must answer the call to salvation from sin and faith in Christ. They must also be willing to be taught. If God finds them suitable in His infinite wisdom, He commissions them. There is nothing like 'successor of the Apostles'. It is a self-imposed title some groups give themselves to have a false claim to monopoly of the ministry. The pastor in my Assembly was chosen by God to minister in His house. God Himself has been bearing witness to His calling over his life and ministry (Hebrews 2:4). You can petition God if you feel he is and others are not among the 'successors of the Apostles' and as such not qualified to minister. Thank you.

NtoAkwaIbom:
All these folks who think that everything in life is about sex.

I was opportuned to listen to his broadcast..
anyone that knows him knows that he is a fiery man of God.
him talk say him calling been be to serve God and not serve the Bishop or pope.
He said that he want to spread Gods gospel to the ends of the earth, and that the rules and ordinance of the church are a major hindrance.. he stated an irreconcilable grievance with the Bishop as one of the reasons..
he said that rather than fight with them that he prefers to leave.

I heard that he owns Grace MediaOutreach a media platform that preaches on all radio stations in Akwa Cross.
he owns a school... and he is willing to walk away from all that with nothing....

so you guys should know what you spit... Fr Patrick Edet was the Father Mbaka of the Akwa/Cross region.

me sef no be Catholic but that man is one fiery fireball of Gods words.