₦airaland Forum

truthislight: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part." (1 Corinthians 13:9).

"For we all stumble many times. If any man does not stumble in word, this one is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body." (James 3:2).

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" (Romans 3:10).

Not even the pope, if he says he is righteouse, christ ransom sacrifice is not for him.

bible verse cannot interpret itself. what you put up there is subject to the reader's interpretation. I ask that you prove (using the bible) that zikkyy is fallible on matters that has to do with the interpretation of the bible, and you are throwing up bible verse with supporting message. so where is the proof that am fallible?

truthislight: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part." (1 Corinthians 13:9).

This is talking about knowledge of God. no relationship with zikkyy's fallibility

truthislight: "For we all stumble many times. If any man does not stumble in word, this one is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body." (James 3:2).

very far from the discussion. This one here has more to do with taming the tongue.

truthislight: "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" (Romans 3:10).

So? if it is written that there is none rifhteous nkor? Its not nothing to do with zikkyy's fallibility.

Abeg answer my question jor

truthislight: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part." (1 Corinthians 13:9).

"For we all stumble many times. If any man does not stumble in word, this one is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body." (James 3:2).

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" (Romans 3:10).

Not even the pope, if he says he is righteouse, christ ransom sacrifice is not for him.

More 'out of point' references i dey come for you. make i attend to my oga at the top for office.

shdemidemi: We identify who is saying the truth by going back to the scriptures to verify what anyone says.

achievable if am saying "the scriptures says so & so...". you cannot truly validate my interpretation, you can only come back with your own version/interpretation of the scriptures. though its possible your interpretation will make more sense.

Enigma: @ Zikky
Does one himself have to be "infallible" to say that the Roman Catholic "pope" is not "infallible"?

For example can a person who is not infallible not say that a Roman Catholic "pope" who says the below when compared with the Bible --- cannot be infallible?

"Infallible" "pope"

"... after Christ, we find in Mary the end of the law and the fulfillment of the figures and oracles."

versus

Romans 10:4

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes."

You know my position on Papal infallibility. i believe i have stated that in the past, but....

Enigma: @ Zikky
Does one himself have to be "infallible" to say that the Roman Catholic "pope" is not "infallible"?

..it can only be an opinion. your/my interpretation.

shdemidemi: All I am saying is, God never promised He will speak to any man today (not even the pope), not even through the Holy Spirit.

so when i have dreams that becomes reality, you don't think its from God

shdemidemi: But through the Word of God we can all know what He had said hence we can latch on to what had been said and not what is to be said.

again it comes down to the matter of interpretation (of the word of God). The written word is there and is always the same. how we interpret is a different matter. If you say God speak to us through the word, then i will say God can very well speak to the Pope. It's left for the Pope to either allow God guide him in the interpretation/processing of what he reads or reject God and do it his way. I think the issue here is determining the decision of the Pope. Are we in a position to do that and say with 100% confidence that the Pope rejected the Almighty? to do that, we have to believe we are correct or we cannot be wrong, and you know what that means.......infallibility

truthislight: Where did you learn that christians must be infallible from ?

Nairaland

shdemidemi: So, because cars have accident we should stop getting into cars? No.

Thats not what am saying. my question is this: who decides the car that will be involved in a collision?

shdemidemi: The bible never promised everyone will speak the truth but you can't go wrong if you stick by what the scripture says.

I agree. how do we identify the person speaking the truth? when they are all quoting/interpreting the scripture (as they see it, maybe) and we on our part also processing their interpretations as want to understand it. so who is heading in the wrong direction?

truthislight: You have to consistently study the bible for yourself, and ever ready to stick only to what the bible say. As long as you closely follow the bible, it will keep you in the right.

what do mean by 'stick only'?

truthislight: The bible is my basis. No ?

Okay then, using the bible kindly prove that zikkyy is fallible on matters that has to do with the interpretation of the bible itself. Thanks.

truthislight: Do you listen to yourself at all ?

okay na, am listening to you. answer the question above.

shdemidemi: I don't believe that.

Thank you jare. simple question, and truthislight is dancing atilogwu round the question

shdemidemi: If you think He can asides through the Word, show me what gives you such idea.

i will not pretend to understand you here, kindly clarify. thanks.

truthislight: "Even though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8 ).
..................

That ^ is how efficient the bible is.

The above is what we call 'out of point' (OP) back in the days. If you write this kind answer for exam, you don fail be that am asking if you believe God can appear to a Pope, you are quoting irrelevant bible verse

truthislight: You talk like a Catholic.

This is why i avoid this kind of discussion, instead of focusing on the discussion you are assessing the person behind the post unlike you i can say my view is not influenced by the denomination(s) i associate with. If my views tend to align more with the catholics, maybe i am more catholic than JW

shdemidemi: I believe the bible is 100% correct .......

...what about the people interpreting the bible? are they all correct?

shdemidemi: ..........it clearly states who is correct.

where?

truthislight: Of what use is the Bible if christians have to be "infallible" ?

Leave the bible out of this infallibility matter. if you are not infallible, on what basis do you accuse the other person of propagating false doctrine? So if you agree you are fallible, then you can only give your opinion which may or may not be correct. abi

Enigma: It is possible that God speaks to a "pope": God even "speaks" to people who are not Christians --- for example by calling them.

Thank you jare

Enigma: However, we do know of "popes" who have pulled doctrine from their backsides in circumstances that we can safely say that if anyone instructed them about the doctrine, it could not have been God but must have been satan.

The above is possible.

Enigma: I will give you an example.

In the Bull (very appropriately 'bull' too) Pastor Aeternus, the "pope" Leo X declared effectively that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe in chapter 15 of the Book of Acts of the Bible. He declared that the "pope" is higher than an ecumenical council. For his proof he did not rely on having heard from God, rather he relied on false statements from the forged document known as Pseudo-Isidore!

again, you may be right even though have never heard of the "Pseudo-isidore"

truthislight:
"even though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8 ).

you dey dodge my question you don't believe God can appear to the Pope? yes or no

truthislight: The bible shows what christians should do and not do, going contrary to what it says puts that person on error.

How did you come to know that animal sacrifice is not for christians ?

The bible does not show 'everything' Christians should do or not do, that is my position. if you want to argue that a practice is false, you don't go looking for commands or laws in the bible. The bible is a guide, not a list of dos and don'ts.

shdemidemi: You are now saying what I am saying- if I want nugget, I go to mc Donald's. If they are closed and Burger King is opened, I will go in there to get what I want.

Christians can't impose the truth on Roman Catholics, just as they can't impose it on witch doctors...SIMPLES!

We are not saying the same thing regarding the highlighted bit. Who is a Christian? and who decides what is truth? this is the part i agree with italo, you have to be 'infallible' to make that statement believing you are 100% correct.

truthislight: What use is the bible ?

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

you don't expect to see every instruction written in the bible. Education will/can not tell you everything you need, but it should provide adequate guidance.

truthislight: You claim to be a christian, christianity is not lawlessness.

Where is the command to christians to use, do or make images for worship ?

Show evidence.

@truthislight, you be lawyer which evidence you want again?

truthislight: Where is the proof for the doctrine of infallibility ? None!

Lawlessness!

Lol! You are arguing with anger

adsonstone: No, those verses show that those people made images without God's command and God did not say anything about it.

...and what is the stuff you posted above telling you?

truthislight: Did Yahweh appeared to their pope privately ?

Its possible he did. or you don't believe God can appear to the Pope

truthislight: Let them show proof where Yahweh also directed them as he directed the Israelites and later ask them not to.

They should show proof and not presumptiouse acts, simple.

Which kin proof you want again? You want them to print another version of the bible as proof it was God's instruction?

Enigma: They don't stop there: they insist that because they have this "infallibility", others must be false! So we expose their yansh and show that the emperor has no clothes.

They say because their "pope" has infallibility and is "successor of Peter", every Christian anywhere in the world must submit to their "pope". So we expose their yansh and show that the emperor has no clothes.

No wahala. I agree that nobody have the right to say other believers are false Christians.

shdemidemi: Is this what God arranged or what you feel you can put together on God's behalf?

This has nothing to do with any arrangement. If you don't believe the man on the pulpit is preaching the truth, you have no reason sitting in front of him. there are two options, (1) accept his sermon or (2) walk away. abi you prefer the option of climbing the pulpit and collecting the microphone

On the issue of Papal infallibility

i would say infallibility is needed in a church structure for there to be order church leaders need to be infallible (whether their teachings right or wrong) to avoid disintegration of a church. I don’t think infallibility is something you fight over; you either accept or reject it. Catholics will accept Papal infallibility while others (non catholic) may reject. rejecting the Pope’s teachings may result in him/her ‘porting’ to any other church (e.g. frosbel ). There is also the option of just accepting that part you are comfortable with. It’s the same for every other church; e.g. Adeboye or Oyaks can be considered infallible in the eyes of their members (at least to the extent only the pastor can ‘reverse’ himself).

shdemidemi: They believe they ( their leaders) can add and take out of the Holy Bible, other Christians believe the bible is the spirit of truth hence it is inerrant.

This may not be 100% correct. i think the issue is more of interpretation of scriptures.

Una still dey on this matter. na wa o

truthislight: Hence, the bible is useless and not "profitable" for anything.

why you talk so?

truthislight: Who is the cause of that ^ ?

Is it not that @Italo will not answer questions but rather keeps asking others if they are infellible ?

maybe he is telling you there is no way you can see things differently, unless you are just giving your opinion. Bros, you have to be infallible to argue with italo or to say italo is wrong

No vex if am not making sense; started my reading from this page (10)

Joagbaje: There's no special gospel called prosperity gospel .

what about "kalo-kalo" gospel?

As Gloria Copeland put it, “Give $10 and receive $1,000; give $1,000 and receive $100,000;...

Joagbaje: The bible was clear that such giving is such as tithes and offering are brought into the house of God. Where the ministers pray over them

This is what happens when you mistake the "rhapsody" for the bible the bible did not say you should bring your tithe for ministers to pray over them.

Joagbaje: That scripture is not about the general tithe which is given to God.

You mean God stretched his hand from Heaven to collect the tithe himself The beneficiaries of the tithe were the Levites, widows, orphans, even aliens. So which of the beneficiary above equate to giving to God and which one equate to giving to satan?

Joagbaje: The general tithe was done every year and it is taken to the place of worship.

What are you talking about? the merriment tithe was also annual.

Deuteronomy 14:22-23 (NIV)
22 Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the Lord your God always.