Evangelicals/Reforms/Baptists/Born Again

[ketllac]

---

mao ni siya ang present nga mga nahitabo sa atong nasod karon.. daghan na kaau nag mga relihiyon,, nag libog nata kung unsa jud ang tinood,, pero sa ako lang opinyon, kung unsa imong namat an nga relihiyon mao nalang na imong tuhu an,, kay para naku maski katoliko kapa or iglesia, or protestante, para naku usa ray atong ginoo.. dili ni ikalalis ug dili sad ni siya ikapanghambog..

yup naa kay point kay dili lang gani sa pilipinas kudili tibuok kalibutan. Naa kay ikalalis kung naa kay nahibaw-an. ug dire nag sugod nga nag kadaghan ang relihiyon kay tungod sa doctrina sa sola scriptura nga pwede kang maka buhat ug sekta base sa imong nasabtan sa bibliya contrary sa doctrina sa Katoliko nga ang simbahan usa ra nga nagagikan sa iyang pag hatag ug authority ni Pedro isip unang santo Papa.

[Resurgence]

For those who believe in SOLA SCRIPTURA,

- If humans can write lots of books, why is God's glories limited to just one book? Isn't he called God because his glories are innumerable, immeasureable and countless? Then why is it limited to just one book then?

[redhorse1L]

Fundamentalists do not believe in Sola Scriptura. They believe in SOLO Scriptura. ^_^ and the ones mentioned on this thread's subject are (i think*) not fundamentalists. hehe

and to answer your question, we believe in sola scriptura because the scripture is the only final and infallible truth for christian living. it doesnt necessarily mean that the scripture is the only truth, but we are SURE that it's infallible. to err is human, right? so anything that comes from man (in your case your pope), could not be what the Lord trully wills. it could be right but it could also be wrong. thus, it's not necessarily the CERTAIN truth so why should we entrust our faith on something so indefinite?

Again, let me rephrase my question.
Why believe in Bible Alone, when nowhere in the Bible says so?

[ilovedogs]

Again, let me rephrase my question.
Why believe in Bible Alone, when nowhere in the Bible says so?

i think i already answered that. but to rephrase also my answer since you dint seem to catch my point. it's not necessarily that the bible is the only one that we can base our faith on, but this is the ONLY source of information that we acknowledge as infallible. meaning, this is the only thing that we are sure does not err. yes, our basis of faith can be based on other things, and in your case your pope, but we dont really acknowledge the word of a mere human as infallible. it says in Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" and i doubt your pope is an exception to that.

now you ask me why when it was never mentioned in the bible? i will also throw you the same question, is there anything also in the bible that says we should do otherwise?

[necrotic freak]

^^the Pope is only human. ok... then who wrote the books of the bible?

[ilovedogs]

The statement that says bible is the only final truth is incorrect because according to the bible in Timothy 3;15 says that the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. However the statement that says its infallible is correct. The only thing that makes it incorrect is the word "ONLY". Why protestant churches fond of using the word "only" to the extent that it sounds Christians are the only special people in the universe.

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.

In this statement we can say that the bible can talk and can interpret by itself without a reader and interpreter subject to errors. Its the same as saying that the constitution can interpret by itself and can govern the country without the constitutional commission and supreme court. Now if that is the case why there are so many conflicting doctrines in the Protestant churches.
Do you think that bible will interpret by itself without an interpreter or authority ? If its self explanatory, why protestant/evangelical churches have different interpretations of the alleged self explanatory message from the book?

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.

Who deviated the true teachings of the bible among the protestant sects? and what churches among the evangelicals/protestants teach infallible doctrines from the bible. I challenge you name it.

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.

Since the Catholic church has entrusted and has an apostolic succession ,that reason alone validates the infallibility of the pope.

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

[ilovedogs]

^^the Pope is only human. ok... then who wrote the books of the bible?

by men driven by God. the bible may be the handwork of men but it is the Word of God (willed by God). the men that wrote the books in the bible were all driven by God, they wrote only what God wanted to be told, they dint jst get it from thin air or come up with it according to their own wisdom, thoughts or feelings. and remember that the books in the bible were thoroughly validated for it's infallibility, and authenticity. it took hundred of years of rigorous checking before they are identified as part of the word of God. it din't happen in a year's time only. there was a process followed.

[necrotic freak]

by men driven by God. the bible may be the handwork of men but it is the Word of God (willed by God). the men that wrote the books in the bible were all driven by God, they wrote only what God wanted to be told, they dint jst get it from thin air or come up with it according to their own wisdom, thoughts or feelings. and remember that the books in the bible were thoroughly validated for it's infallibility, and authenticity. it took hundred of years of rigorous checking before they are identified as part of the word of God. it din't happen in a year's time only. there was a process followed.

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

then you say they are infallible? but you dont accept that the pope is driven by God also?

im glad that you know how the bible was made and compiled. my question is, who did the thorough validation and identification of the 4 canonical gospels in NT? im sure your religion at that time was not yet born.

also i want you to differentiate St. Paul and Blessed John Paul II, they are human and God driven. why do you acknowledge only the words of St. Paul over Blessed John Paul II?

[ilovedogs]

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

then you say they are infallible? but you dont accept that the pope is driven by God also?

im glad that you know how the bible was made and compiled. my question is, who did the thorough validation and identification of the 4 canonical gospels in NT? im sure your religion at that time was not yet born.

also i want you to differentiate St. Paul and Blessed John Paul II, they are human and God driven. why do you acknowledge only the words of St. Paul over Blessed John Paul II?

i corrected my above post, it was not Paul but Peter. no matter how many times you insist, we don't believe that the catholic church is founded by apostle Peter.

i STRONGLY believe that the bible is the WORD of GOD. Thus, it's infallible and will never err. it is God-breathed. and this includes all books in it, not just a select few.

the words of your Pope/s are not necessarily wrong, but even so, we don't find or will even acknowledge them to be infallible (absolutely true and right). they could be right but they could also be wrong. so, why would we entrust our faith on something not really definite? this is a choice and this is what we believe and what our faith is. we are not saying that everything your pope has/had said are ALL WRONG. all we are saying is that we accept that some are right, but not all.

[necrotic freak]

i corrected my above post, it was not Paul but Peter. no matter how many times you insist, we don't believe that the catholic church is founded by apostle Peter.

i STRONGLY believe that the bible is the WORD of GOD. Thus, it's infallible and will never err. it is God-breathed. and this includes all books in it, not just a select few.

the words of your Pope/s are not necessarily wrong, but even so, we don't find or will even acknowledge them to be infallible (absolutely true and right). they could be right but they could also be wrong. so, why would we entrust our faith on something not really definite? this is a choice and this is what we believe and what our faith is. we are not saying that everything your pope has/had said are ALL WRONG. all we are saying is that we accept that some are right, but not all.

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.