[Gamecock]

So there you have it, contrary to what has been said on other threads, Protestants are heretics.

If Rome could get away with it, we’d be burned at the stake, like the “heretics” of old.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

Yup, WE’RE the heretics for “the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).”

Yup - those fables of man that the RCC has declared to be of God - they MUST be of God because the man in the religious garb has said so. And if you don’t accept that man’s declarations - he stands in the place of God don’t ya know - let ye be anathema!

Praise be to the one true God of Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham that He is not bound in the religious traps and trappings of man’s wicked mind.

[Pyro7480]

You didn't even read the article did you? An excerpt:

To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic

If Rome could get away with it, we’d be burned at the stake, like the “heretics” of old.

That's a jump in reasoning if I ever saw one.

[netmilsmom]

What does your church call me? A Roman Catholic?

[D-fendr]

Yeah, sure. And if Protestants could get away with it, we’d have our heads chopped off.

This is silly.

Each considers the other’s beliefs heretical. We both left off government/church persecution some time back.

[HarleyD]

The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation."

What a hoot to use this verse as an argument for Church authority. The author should post the context.

2Pe 1:19 We also have a more sure Word of prophecy, to which you do well to take heed, as to a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the Daystar arises in your hearts,
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture came into being of its own private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For prophecy was not borne at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke being borne along by the Holy Spirit.
2Pe 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who secretly will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many will follow their pernicious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be evil spoken of.
...
2Pe 3:1 Beloved, I now write this second letter to you, in which I stir up your pure mind by reminder
2Pe 3:2 to remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the Lord and Savior by us, the apostles.

The whole context of 2 Peter is the word of God. The only way a person can know false prophets and false teachers, according to Peter, is through the words which were spoken by 1) the prophets, 2) the Lord, and 3) the apostles. The "interpretation" does not rest in some group of peoples trying to figure it out. The Old Testament has been interpreted for us (to a point). It's a bit disingenuous for the author to claim verse 1:20 talks about the authority of the Church when the whole book of 2 Peter is about the authority of the word.