Replies

Thus the only way for men to be certain of spiritual truth

The Church teaches that there is no certainty in faith, just hope. There are those who say "Lord, Lord," and believe, with certainty that they are saved, and yet the Bible says otherwise. (Mat. 7:21) The Church teaches against excessive self-confidence in second-guessing God.

And by which “the infallibility of the Church in its teaching is proved independently of the inspiration of Scripture.”

Well, if no one's interpretation is infallible, then the truth isn't and cannot be known. End of story. I could have told you that from the beginning.

And again, rather than fostering implicit faith in an infallible magisterium

Whether you place your faith in an infallible magisterium of men or in your own personal infallible magisterium, it is fallible human beings interpreting writings of other fallible human beings. Second, if the Holy Spirit guides you personally why not the magisterium? Are members of the magisterium also not believers in whom indwells the Spirit?

So you say. Naturally, those seeking for a way to deny the authority of the Scriptures invoke this as a convenient hypothesis.

Asserting the authority of the scriptures is a matter of faith. The Jews reject your scriptures as Christians reject Mormon scriptures; and all three accept theirs on faith alone.

But, here is the futility of all these arguments: the Bible contains enough self-contradiction, because it's so open to personal interpretation, and because of factual contradictions, as to make it possible for every extant sect and cult to defend its beliefs using the very same Bible! All heresies are judged and founded on the biblical interpretation.

What I wrote about John's Gospel is a reflection of history, namely that the tensions between the Christians and Jews were intensifying and that by the time John & al wrote their Gospel, the Christians were declared apostates and cursed by the rabbis. Since then Christianity took a progressively anti-Jewish turn, and became progressively more Hellenized.

The Church teaches that there is no certainty in faith, just hope. There are those who say "Lord, Lord," and believe, with certainty that they are saved, and yet the Bible says otherwise. (Mat. 7:21) The Church teaches against excessive self-confidence in second-guessing God.

But there is a caveat which affirms otherwise: "If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema." — Trent.CANON XVI

And by which “the infallibility of the Church in its teaching is proved independently of the inspiration of Scripture.”

Well, if no one's interpretation is infallible, then the truth isn't and cannot be known. End of story. I could have told you that from the beginning.

There was no need to, as that is not the real story. Rome's statement is referring to its assuredly infallible interpretation of history, and the problem is not whether something can be know infallibly, as it can be if we can know anything for sure, but the basis for it, as regards Rome's assuredly infallible criteria.

As per above, the issue is not whether Rome can teach infallible truth, which must be allowed, but that she is supposedly assuredly infallible according to a criteria regarding content, scope and personnel, which is what makes her substantiation, if offered, infallible, although Ott held that “infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.”

So you say. Naturally, those seeking for a way to deny the authority of the Scriptures invoke this as a convenient hypothesis.

Asserting the authority of the scriptures is a matter of faith. The Jews reject your scriptures as Christians reject Mormon scriptures; and all three accept theirs on faith alone.

Such are the typical attempts to discredit the integrity of the Bible, and i would like to expose such allegations of supposed contras as spurious such as i have already done to yours, while many web sites deal with such, as well as the relative few copyist errors in every manuscript of any real import. As for this aspect enabling “every extant sect and cult to defend its beliefs using the very same Bible,” that is not the case. The variant beliefs of the different churches very rarely turn on textual or manuscripts differences.

As for personal interpretation, that is an expected reality in every field, and while theology is an extensive one, core truths find almost universal concurrence in Protestantism has a whole, with opposition to those who deny them, which are typically groups in which an authority is effectively held as superior to that of the Bible. And again, what is necessary for salvation and growth is not a great intellect, that of a humble and contrite heart before God.

Finding possible cause with conjuncture is all it takes it seems, however the problem is that the Old Testament is also quite harsh on the Jews when guilty of spiritual declension, and it is in the earlier Gospels that the harshest words are used against Jerusalem, representing Israel as those against their leaders. Of course, no reasonable explanation for any negative connotation of the Jews in John's Gospel can be allowed , even though he was speaking in the overall sense, and also addressed his audience as the gospel applied to them, as did each of the writers without actual contradictions between them, except for the contrived types you have exampled.