Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Apollo5600
All this argument goes in a circle. You claim (by what right?) the power to interpret Scripture infallibly. From whole cloth, not as if passing on a tradition of interpretation(which you are in fact but claim otherwise)but as one whom the spirit has empowered to prophesy the truth. All this depends, however, on a book not written by Jesus and arguably not even by the persons who are the putative authors. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not sign their works. We actually don’t know when the books were written, or where or by whom. Not from the text itself. These names are traditional. Either you believe the testimony of the Church, or you do not. Simple as that.
66 posted on 02/21/2012 9:58:23 AM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: RobbyS

“All this argument goes in a circle. You claim (by what right?) the power to interpret Scripture infallibly. “

No, I’m pretty sure I didn’t. Try again.

“but as one whom the spirit has empowered to prophesy the truth. “

I have not claimed the gift of prophecy. However, it is a fact that the Holy Spirit indwells all believers, giving the saved individual a new mind and a new nature.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This doesn’t mean that we are infallible. It does mean, however, that we are not without help, and that if we knock, God will definitely answer.

You act as if the scriptures are so difficult to understand that none dare read it on their own lest they are deceived. However, you cannot produce some fundamental doctrine that cannot be understood with simple logical and reading comprehension. Perhaps the prophecies of the Book of Revelation would be a bit tough, as one must understand the book of Daniel and speculate on the meanings of the various things John saw. Nevertheless, there is no such difficulty when it comes to the essentials, such as how one is saved, or the existence of hell, or even the Trinity (even though that word is not itself used). You insist on “tradition” and Catholic supremacy because Catholic doctrine required a leap of faith to believe.

It is not possible for you to justify the many perversions of scripture that Catholicism teaches, a few of which I have mentioned in this thread but have never gotten an answer for.

As for each book of the Bible needing to be signed. Plenty of them state who the author is. I will also add that the Popish church didn’t exist when those books were written. They were given to the various churches and used for a long time, long before the heresy of infant baptism (and baptism being required in order to achieve salvation) first reared its ugly head and the conversion of Constantine, who was so afraid concerning the doctrine that baptism is required to wash away sin, that he would not let himself be baptized until just before death (in order to wash away the maximum amount of sin). Here we have the greatest alleged conquest of the Catholic Church who, actually, did not even trust the saving power of Christ or the plain meaning of scripture. It’s possible the latter is because the “Bishops” would not allow him to read the scripture for himself.


67 posted on 02/21/2012 7:00:39 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson