Evangelicals/Reforms/Baptists/Born Again

[ilovedogs]

---

yes youre right apostle Peter is not the founder of the catholic church but Jesus Christ Himself. He just entrusted it to Peter.

it seems you dont like to get my point. again, there are lots of gospels at that time. why its only 4 gospels in the bible? who made the decision and chose those 4 gospel? note, there are no other christian church at that time except RCC.

let me again reiterate. i do not believe that Peter NOR Jesus founded the catholic church.

what i can advise you to do is read other historical books/sources (not only created by your catholic church) so that you'd decide for yourself if truly catholic church was founded by Peter and more so by Jesus himself.

ang nakadaut mn gud ninyo, you always insist that the roman catholic was founded by Peter. but we dont believe that, simple. so if you're gonna use that logic to us, it will never make sense. the new testament WAS NOT DECIDED by the catholic church. the early christians (ayw mo ug pangangkon nga catholico ni kay dili lagi mi mutuo) did that and they only include those that are written by the apostles of Jesus or those closely related to them.

[d.a.m.a.s.o.]

be right back

[ketllac]

@ilovedogs

you're twisting my words to make it sound different. i said we believe that the bible is the only infallible source of info for our faith. i dint say we're the only ones going to heaven, in fact those people that say this does not understand salvation! ok? learn to read other people's comment before commenting. Timothy 3;15 only says that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, it does not create it! the church is going to protect the truth, proclaim it, uphold it, but not update/change it.

Let us analyzed what you've said " the only final and infallible truth for christian living. Hey dogs your using the word ONLY final truth while the bible teaches otherwise. Reflect on this verse "Timothy 3;15 says that the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Look at that you failed to realize that protestants are fond of using ONLY which is sola in latin because you have five solas, sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solo Christo, and Soli Deo gloria. di ba puro only only....nya can you provide a verse in the bible that the only "infallible truth"?

What verse in the bible that supports the doctrine about only infallible truth?

i dint say we're the only ones going to heaven, in fact those people that say this does not understand salvation! ok?

And did I say that? What I've stated in my previous post was just a question when I asked "why Why protestant churches fond of using the word "only" to the extent that it sounds Christians are the only special people in the universe. How can you connect my question to your answer when you said that "i dint say we're the only ones going to heaven" Did I accuse you that Christians are the only one saved. you're so reactive. Is that a typical reaction for a woman who loves dog? kidding...

learn to read other people's comment before commenting.

look at yourself you're so reactive. Its you who must learn to read other people's comment before commenting. hehehhe, comprehension problem dogs? Do you know what projection is? Ikaw ako ingnon ana Learn to read other people's comment before commenting...tsk tsk...

i dont speak for the whole protestant community so i really can't mention point by point why we have so many different interpretation of the bible. but what i am sure of is that protestants may have different interpretation of the bible, but this is because we actually READ and try to UNDERSTAND the bible. unlike some that believes on whatever is told to them by their leaders, so why else would you have a different understanding when in the first place, you dont really read it. you only read it so you can throw verses on our face at forums like this.

In this case bible alone doctrine or sola scriptura is flawed because it teaches conflicting truths about christian doctrine. What is true to you is not true to other sects. In this logic Christ doesnt have a word of honor if that is the case. Theres no credibility of this so called doctrine (sola scriptura). Based on your answer "walay pulos ang sola scriptura kay tinuod sa imo ang usa ka doktrina sa uban bakak. hehehhe. Lain lain ba diay ang meaning sa teaching ni Kristo? In this case mahulog nga bakakon si Kristo or walay word of honor?

but what i am sure of is that protestants may have different interpretation of the bible, but this is because we actually READ and try to UNDERSTAND the bible.

The word try is not a good word because it doesn't follow that you understand it and it also implies that after you try you might fail. Again you failed.

again, im not a representative of the whole protestant community, and neither do i know all of their doctrines, so i may have to leave you to ponder on that more.

I don't need to ponder because I know that before that sola scriptura is walay pulos. You can't answer it? does it mean that you ran out of reasons to defend your doctrine.? heheheh is that an elusive technique?

now, i wanna laugh so hard you might get offended. but seriously, do you really, trully believe that your pope is infallible??!?!?!? and by the way, there had been numerous studies proving that the apostle Peter was not the founder of the catholic church. he was in rome, yes, but he was not the one that started the catholic church. try looking up Simon Magus

Yup I truly believe that the pope is infallible in terms of faith and morals.

and by the way, there had been numerous studies proving that the apostle Peter was not the founder of the catholic church. he was in rome, yes, but he was not the one that started the catholic church.

Can you give me an independent source and let us debate it. I can give you one from you first leader Martin Luther himself..

Akoy magkatawa nimo kay ikaw ang mo twist sa comment. Imo pa kong ingnan nga learn to read peoples comment pero ikaw man diay ni imo giingon. did I say that Peter founded the Church? sus nimo oy. pag reactive sad ning bayhana. What I said was Christ gave Peter the keys of the kingdom because he was instructed. That statement doesn't mean that Peter founded Catholicism. again kinsa may angay kataw-an ani ron? Can you trace your church up to the time of Peter.? I don't think so because masangit ka ni Luther. Why Luther admitted that Catholicsm can be traced back to Christ unya ikaw dili. Gikontra nimo imo founder.

try looking up Simon Magus

Oh no... you failed again....Simon Magus taught gnostic heresies. Kana ba imo source nga makaingon ka nga dili authentic ang Catholicism? Learn more about gnostic heresies.Appeal to authority and yet the authority

akong baliko hap. Martin Luther himself admitted that Catholism can be traced back up to the time of Christ and he also concede that Catholicism is authentic. Kinsay credible ninyong duha ni Luther? ikaw nga natawo bag o ra o siya nga gikan mismo sa katoliko..?

Kinsa natong duha karon ang nagmumukhang walang alam?

here it is: Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church.

from Protestant site; http://www.orlutheran.com/html/mlsermjo … 604-2.html

[ketllac]

@ilovedogs

Let me correct my question on my previous comment above..typological error

What verse in the bible that supports the doctrine that the bible is the ONLY source of information which is infallible or the only final truth?

[nijazared]

incase you dont know, the church was built through Peter the Rock. and that's a God's will.

This is where most arguments come from. As RCC interprets the scripture as Peter being the Rock based on what the scripture says. I would like to elaborate on it but let me post a quote from another website which would explain as to why this shoudn't be the case.

***

What is the True Identity of the Rock upon which the church is built?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal [this] to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter [Gk: petros - a boulder or stone], and upon this rock [Gk: petra - a large mass of rock] I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (NASB).
I have heard of two major alternatives to the Roman Catholic identification of the Rock upon which Jesus would build his church. One is that Peter's confession of Christ is the rock upon which the church is built. That is to say, by "this rock" Jesus meant the foundational revelation that Peter was the first man to confess, that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God." The second alternative is that the Rock was Jesus himself, while Peter was the first stone to be built upon the rock of Christ in the church which Christ Himself is buliding. This latter interpretation makes more sense to me, because it is in perfect harmony with the tradition which the Scripture itself establishes concerning the spiritual meaning of the word "Rock".
Allow Scripture to interpret Scripture
An important principle in evangelical thinking is to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Since "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." it folows that every interpretation of Scripture should be in harmony with the rest of Scripture. The Scriptures have a lot to say about who the rock is. For example:
1 Corinthians 10:4 "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ".
Romans 9:33 just as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
Habakkuk 1:12 Art Thou not from everlasting, O Lord, my God, my Holy One? We will not die. Thou, O Lord, hast appointed them to judge; And Thou, O Rock , hast established them to correct.
Isaiah 26:4 "Trust in the Lord forever, For in God the Lord, [we have] an everlasting Rock .
Psalm 144:1 (of David.) Blessed be the Lord, my rock , Who trains my hands for war, [And] my fingers for battle;
Psalm 94:22 But the Lord has been my stronghold, And my God the rock of my refuge.
Not only is the Lord God Himself consistently portrayed as the rock throughout both the Old and New Testaments, but the Scriptures go so far as to say that only the Lord God is our rock.
Psalm 62:2 He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be greatly shaken.
Isaiah 44:8 'Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any [other] Rock ? I know of none.' "
2 Samuel 22:32 "For who is God, besides the Lord? And who is a rock , besides our God?
The interpretation of the Lord God being our only true rock ties in nicely with the words of the apostle Paul, "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus" (1 Corinthians 3:11). Truly then, Jesus is the foundation upon which the true church is built, not Peter.
Peter therefore, cannot be the primary rock on which Jesus will build his church. As we will see, Peter himself did not have the stability or the stature to be the foundation rock upon which the eternal church of Christ was to be built. Peter denied the Lord during the trial of Christ. And a few verses later in the Matthew 16 passage Jesus identifies Peter as being inspired by Satan (Matthew 16:23), while in Galatians 2:11 Paul reports an incident which revealed Peter's ongoing tendency to weakness. According to Paul, Peter was in the wrong and stood condemned, and was not being straight forward about the truth of the gospel! This is hardly the image of a solid infallible rock upon which all future generations of Christ church were to be built. Only Jesus Himself can carry that weight, and thank God, He does.
It seems to me that Roman Catholics have taken their conception of Peter as the rock upon which they build their entire system. Church history reveals the moral depths to which these so-called vicars of Christ have fallen. I'm not sure it is edifying to go into a full list of these things, but if it turns out to be important to some of my readers I may make the effort to document this on another web-page. In any case, it seems that common sense as well as the Bible itself would indicate that Jesus was not meaning that Peter was the rock upon which he would build his church. We can all freely acknowledge that Peter had a key role in the development of the early church and that he did have a great deal of spiritual authority from Christ. This is beyond dispute. But the Roman Catholic position goes far beyond this, and in so doing, gets our eyes of Christ and onto men, something which is never advisable for those wishing to build a solid and enduring relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
It is also interesting to note that Peter certainly did not fit into the current conception of a pope, since he had a mother-in-law, meaning he was married. Read Mark 1:30, which speaks of "Simon's wife's mother". The topic of celibate priesthood is outside the scope of the current discussion, but it is another aberration from the plain teaching of Scripture (1 Timothy 3:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:2).
Incidentally, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were not given exclusively to Peter. The same authority of binding and loosing were given to all Jesus' disciples in Matthew 18:18. All Jesus' disciples have the authority to use his Name, and the truth is, Jesus never gave anyone the authority to abrogate (nullify) His own plain words and teachings

***

Taken from
Is the Roman Catholic Church the one true church founded by Jesus Christ? | Christian Faith Site

[ilovedogs]

^^ i cn always blame my hormones

Bisayaon nln nko beh kay murag nglisud kag samot sa akong pasabot. Wala mi niingon nga ang bible ra jd ang source sa truth, dghan mn pwd masource ana. But kng infallibility na gani isturyahan, meaning sa kareliable, kamatinud-anun, kasaligan ang BIBLE ra jd among gituohan nga dili masayop. Klaro na? Ingon ko sa uban nko post pwd pd nga sakto inyong santo papa but wala mi assurance kng tinuod ba jd or sakto because it's not something taken frm the bible.

And i think you and i both believe that the bible is infallible, correct? Pro remember nga lain2 mn jd na ang pagsabot sa mga taw sa bible. Dili impossible nga naa jd difference ang mga interpretation but that does not mean nga gidoubt namu ang word of God. maguol mn ka ug lain2x among sabut nga inig atubang natu sa Ginoo kami bitaw manubag sa among gituohan kng sayup mn gani. pro salamat sa imong pagcare =p

Luther might be the first protestant but it does not necessarily mean nga iyang mga beliefs is also what we believe at the time luther might hv said that (im not really sure if he really did), there was not mch studies done to trace back the history of roman catholic. So iyang knowlEdge then might be limited.

[ketllac]

Is the Roman Catholic Church the one true church founded by Jesus Christ? | Christian Faith Site

hahaha. failed what can we expect from the protestant site..? Your source is not credible because its from the protestant site.

The link that I provided the link is from the protestant itself and history tells us that Martin Luther conceded that Catholicism has the authority. It validates the fact that the Church is the pillar of truth in Timothy.

Failed kay imo source bias kay gikan sa anti catholic whereas akoa sa inyuhang founder gyud nga baba mismo.hehehehhe. Use cross referencing part....Mo copy and past man gani kanang independent source dili sectarian.hehehhee

[ilovedogs]

OT id appreciate it if you refrain from dragging my dogs into this. I dnt think loving dogs have any bearing to my conduct in this forum if you want to make a healthy conversation, go straight to the point nlng. Oks?

[nijazared]

Is the Roman Catholic Church the one true church founded by Jesus Christ? | Christian Faith Site

hahaha. failed what can we expect from the protestant site..? Your source is not credible because its from the protestant site.

The link that I provided the link is from the protestant itself and history tells us that Martin Luther conceded that Catholicism has the authority. It validates the fact that the Church is the pillar of truth in Timothy.

Failed kay imo source bias kay gikan sa anti catholic whereas akoa sa inyuhang founder gyud nga baba mismo.hehehehhe. Use cross referencing part....Mo copy and past man gani kanang independent source dili sectarian.hehehhee

Before you react and say bias read the discussion and the points presented there as Catholics also have posted replies to the arguments being presented there. And to correct you, I am not a protestant. My religion is Jesus Christ and not Baptist, Fundamental, Catholic nor Evangelical. I truly believe that I am saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior. Cross referencing will get you nowhere, there are a lot of arguments and debates over what is wrong and what is not. It started long ago and it will not end any time soon.
The site might be from non-catholics but the arguments being presented are based on the Bible.

Each and every religion will continue to debate who is wrong and who is right but the thing is, does it really save you? It is up for you to try and open your eyes to the truth or just stay and believe in what has been presented to you since birth. It only takes an open mind to understand what is the truth out there. This isn't just about Catholicism and religion for us who have Faith, it's about who gets saved or not.

[ilovedogs]

Exactly, religion will not save you ^_^ bsan magpatay patag debate diri kng wa ra ghapOn tay relationship sa Ginoo, dili ra gihapon ta maluwas mao na nga be very careful in what you believe, kng kng ijudge na ta dili rba pwd muingon 'ang2x beh ingon mn sila mao ni ang sakto'

Mao gani ngbilin ang Ginoo ug kasulatan (bible) pra naa tay guide unsaon nato pagpanginabuhi aning kalibutana sa dili pa sya mubalik. Ok ramn maminaw ta sa sulti sa uban pro dpat inyo idiscern kng sakto ba jd to iyang gisulti, basa kag bible pra pd di ka ignorante unya dali ra patuuhon sa uban.