Posted on 05/25/2015 3:25:43 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
I asked for an infallible rendering of John 6 ...and all get is dancing
The Catholic Church doesn’t infallibly define sections of scripture. It infallibly defines a doctrine and then references sections of scripture as part of that infallible definition.
You have it backwards.
Actually you do... if they can not give an infallible interpretation they can not make infallible doctrine out of it.. Their doctrine is simply their own personal opinion ...no better than Wesley's, Luther's,Calvin's or any ones
I guess you forgot that the canon of the bible wasn’t determined until 300 years after Christ. By your logic the Catholic Church wouldn’t be able to have any doctrine until then. Again, you have it backwards.
Actually the NT church had Pauls letters which were considered scripture as they were being circulated ...
There was NT scripture mentioned by Justin Martyr, who mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
http://www.bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm
Pauls book of Romans is considered a doctrinal book...
Yes but doctrine is determined before scripture is written. Just read Acts 15 which was written much later than the Council of Jerusalem that is described in that chapter. It was here that it was determined that circumcision was no longer required.
Acts is not about doctrine..it is recounting the historical event. All the gospels and acts are retrospective.. the epistles were written to catechize the church...they were doctrinal...and considered scripture from there writing
What you propose is that the doctrine was developed and then the scriptures written to line up with the doctrine .. only Rome would think that ..
I’m going to trust Henry Kamen, since he’s a leading historian on the subject. His book was the first non-polemical history of the inquisition in Spain and his research literally rewrote how the Inquisition is taught. According to Kamen, the Inquisition’s prisons were nicer than the secular ones and people used to confess to heresy to have better cells.
Which may have meant torture was nicer, but how does this differ from what i documented?
A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. (Proverbs 12:10)
What is your point? You have no point. Anybody with a brain would know that doctrine can and has came before scripture. It is disgusting discussing something with someone so wrong. Nobody in their right mind thinks scripture has to come before doctrine. What obscure cult would believe the things that you believe? I understand that there can be disagreements on theological matters between various groups of believers. But unless I am misreading your posts I think I have never met anybody with a more abnormal view on a theological matter than you.
In this post I have been harsh, but you are in my prayers.
By the way, Acts 15 is one of the most doctrinal chapters in the bible.
Only catholics think that scripture is irrelevant to the formation of doctrine, because most of theirs in not in the scripture
PETER SAID THE EPISTLES PAU WAS WRITING WERE SCRIPTURE... and what did Paul use to develop the doctrine he was teaching ...THE OT SCRIPTURES
THINK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.