Anne Rice quits Christianity -- but not Christ

Baltimore Sun ^ | July 30, 2010

[NYer]

Novelist Anne Rice remains committed to Christ. But she is quitting Christianity.

The “Interview With The Vampire” author, who in recent years has spoken publicly about her faith and written a series of novels tracing the life of Jesus, wrote on her Facebook page Wednesday that she was finished with organized Christianity.

For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being "Christian" or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outside. My conscience will allow nothing else.

She followed that post a few minutes later with more details:

As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I'm out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

On Thursday, Rice posted a series of passages from the New Testament:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

[SuziQ]

Most Protestants in the US base their religious beliefs largely on the writings of Luther or Calvin, or one of their ‘followers’. This was the point I was making, and I believe verga was making also. So even though these two men may not be considered ‘Popes’, much of American Protestantism is derived from what they wrote and passed along to their followers.

[Centurion2000]

Most Protestants in the US base their religious beliefs largely on the writings of Luther or Calvin

Funny, I thought Protestants based it largely and primarily on the Holy Bible.

[daniel1212]

You have to go deeper than that to the source. Most Protestants, or at least especially evangelicals, hold to or reject what Luther or the church of Rome taught due to the manner of Scriptural substantiation provide it, which position, that of the supremacy of Scripture (not the straw man they are often represented as having) was Luther’s most foundational distinctive doctrine. Thus despite disagreements, the foundational truths of the Nicene creed as well as some others are most universally assented to and contended for by evangelicals, versus aberrations of cults who effectively hold to higher authority on earth, while things like paedobaptism and the nature of the Lord’s supper are more open to debate.

And before we go again on such, you might want to see
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2550660/posts?page=329#329
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2550660/posts?page=404#404
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2550660/posts?page=411#411

and related.

[nmh]

‘I’d pipe down and save my venom for the individual rather than broad brush a group, namely Protestants, that you HATE’

"I was a protestant. I simply call them as I see them. Mainstream protestants voted for Obama too."

My reply was directed to NYer. If she wants’ to be Catholic, that is her business. However to suggest it it non Catholics that are all wayward is absurd or that they are some how Catholics are superior is ridiculous. Catholics have plenty of problems in their own church. Last years theme at local Catholic schools was to pray that they Priests would be celibate and stop molesting kids. It's horrendous that the Catholic Church in America, did not turn over Priests who molesting children to the police. Instead the Catholic Church, shifted the molesting police to another Parish. When it happened again, the Priest was snet to still another Parish. Our laws were totally IGNORED. Now the Catholic Church is literally paying for it.

Of course Protestants voted for Obama! Again, it is Nyer that dragged in “religion” in a venomous way. She is notorious for provoking non Catholics on FR but in this situation, she trying to switch the topic to Catholicism as being "better" is atrocious. That is why I reminded her of the ongoing tragedy of payouts to victims of Priest molestation, Catholic schools are shutting down due to these payouts etc..

My reply was not aimed at you. It was aimed at NYer. In generally speaking, America has replaced Christianity with Humanism and the sheeple are proudly strutting their way into hell.

[nmh]

Nyer takes great PRIDE in pointing out the faults of Protestants to try and elevate Catholicism in what ever way she can. It’s sad ... . What she doesn’t realize is that she accomplishes precisely the opposite when she does this.

[NYer]

However to suggest it it non Catholics that are all wayward is absurd or that they are some how Catholics are superior is ridiculous.

You both seem to have misread what I wrote. Let me rephrase the statement as a question. How can 30,000+ "christian" churches all claim to have the Truth? If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." What say you?

[daniel1212]

You might find these interesting:

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec4

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Statistical_Correlations.html

[daniel1212]

I see you continue to post fallacious arguments, which you have been reproved for. Here your response relies upon one, and presumes or infers another.

1. “30,000+ "christian" churches all claim to have the Truth.”

The only way to come up with this number, which is a canard relied upon by many Roman Catholic apologists, is to define “Protestant” as any “Christian” group that is not part of Rome, which is as tenable as atheists calling Hitler a Christian or even a Catholic. While all churches share some commonalities, what most foundationally defined Protestants was that of only holding Scripture as the supreme doctrinal authority (not as the only authority) and its own basic literalistic interpretation, and salvation by grace through faith, and along with that, the essential truths articulated in their Nicene Creed. These are most universally held today by those who in practice are committed to sola Scriptura, from the largest evangelical denomination (S. Baptists) to Assembles of God to Calvary Chapels, etc. This sets them in contrast with so-called Protestant groups which deny the Trinity, and hold to a form of salvation by works-merit, and or extreme doctrines, as well as Rome's extra-Biblical teaching, all of which depend upon a doctrinal office or person which is effectively over the Bible. Moreover, while Protestant churches can claim to have the Truth, as regards commonly held salvific truths, they do not make themselves supreme over all others, as Rome does, which is another mark typical of cults.

2. “put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination.. and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation?”

This presumes that,

A. There is an authority that has infallibly defined all of the Bible, or even a substantial part of it, which is fallacious.

B. Roman Catholics could not or cannot have varying interpretations of the Bible, when in fact they can. Only a very few things (7 verses according to some Roman Catholic apologists) have been infallibly defied by Rome, and “the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty.” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers)

In addition, the dogmas of Rome's infallible Sacred Magisterium require an assent of faith (or “theological assent”), with the opposite being heresy, while the “ordinary assent” (or religious submission of will and intellect) is required for non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium may allow for a limited amount of dissent, as such teachings may contain error and are subject to revision or even revocation, while those of the General Magisterium may include the possibility of significant error.

C. That unity attests to authenticity. If this is true then Roman Catholicism has nothing over individual Protestant denominations, while her historical argument is based upon a problematic history, and false assumption as what established authenticity, and ultimately rests upon her infallible declaration that she in infallible.

E. That the formal unity of Rome is what makes her claim to unity valid and attests to her being the one true church. If this were true, then, considering the vast disagreement with Rome itself by priests and laity, then it would make the one true church to be one which is a very poor teacher, or whose subjects were very poor learners, in contrast to may of her counterparts.

F. That outside Protestantism, that there are not many formal divisions among those Rome recognizes as being “properly called churches”, but not recognizing the supremacy of the pope, which there is.

G. That evangelical Protestant churches are not overall unified in essentials, which is shown by their earnest censure of cults, and evidence more unity in such and Christian moral positions than their Catholic counterparts. Thus evangelicals require belief in certain basic truths, as does Roman Catholicism, while allowing varying degrees of liberty in other doctrines.

H. An assuredly infallible magisterium would promote Biblical unity in the church. This presumes that Biblical unity was the result or implicit trust in an self-proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium, which it was not. Rather, the authority of men like Moses and the apostles (who added new teachings to a still-open canon), was mighty Divinely attested to by supernatural power, Scriptural substantiation, and personal purity, (2Cor. 6:1-10) and they appealed to finite human understanding in persuading souls of the truth they preached, (Acts 17:2,11; Rm. 2Cor. 4:2) and judging their teaching by the Scriptures is commended. (Acts 17:11)

In addition, while disagreements are more evidenced among evangelicals, this is much due to their emphasis upon living by the written word of God, and divisions because of truth are Biblical, (1Cor. 11:19) while the unity that does result because of the Berean method (Acts 17:11) is of higher quality than that which results from implicit trust in such an authority as Rome. And while ideally there should be more doctrinal oversight in evangelical Protestantism (yes, as in the Bible), Rome simply does not qualify, and unity in unScriptural errors has been her legacy.

[Mr. K]

You make a good point- and if it was like that when I talked to them I would have agreed.

This was more like the “price” to make it OK. No mention of examoning the situation, investigation, etc etc...

[Mr. K]

I see. and my narratvie was NOT AT ALL like someone reading a story, adding a whole bunch of stuff to it in your head, and then regurgitating it in the most vile light you can think of...

[nmh]

&I have to say NYer, your feeble attempt to define BIble based Christianity DOWN is pathetic. But this is typical of YOU. You are constantly looking to show superiority in your usual haughty way. You continue to look vindictive abd foolish, as usual. The evidence of this response is the TOPIC of the thread - a NON CATHOLIC who never was a Christian to begin with. THIS is the type of thread you like to post. Meanwhile your Priests are busily molesting little innocent kids .... SHAME ON YOU!

If you had a scenario like that the personality of the individual examining the passage would come throough just as it did with the twelve disciples and others in the Bible and yet they all got it right, eventually. They made mistakes as they were growing in their faith. Their was genuine lack of understanding and sometimes their agenda won out that was not God's agenda.

The Holy Spirit will not deny anyone who truly seeks Him. So your assumption that ALL would have different interpretations continues to show your BLINDLESS to your own HATRED of nonCatholics, Some in the room will write nearly the same thing whereas others may truly not be as mature as other believers in the room.

If you did the same thinking with Jesuits, Roman Catholics, cafeteria style Catholics and just plain Catholics, you'd have a similar result but their beliefs are not Biblie based so the results would be more troubling.

There is no “misunderstanding” you, NYer. You only clarify your unchristian HATRED of non Catholics over and over again in most unbecoming ways. You are transparent. You are hardly clever. I am personally disgusted with the "low road" you insist on taking.

I could take that road and humiliate you through talking about your leaders, the Inquisition, the Crusades, Faith discovered by Luther, Indulgences, Mary, imaginary cannibalism used as "communion" etc. and easily shame you, even if you don't realize that. I won't. There is NO LOVE of CHRIST in you. It shows in your HATRED of others. I want nothing to do with sucha avile person. I simply refuse to throw pearls after swine. the Bible is right!

[nmh]

Always remember, NYer any fallible mortal can tells lies. In this situation as well as Catholicism, people who are spiritually discerned will be quick to embrace lies. They are lazy people that don't want to read what GOD says through His prophets and apostles.

Joseph Goebbels was right:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels

Rephrased:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the Pope can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the Pope to use all of its powers to repress dissent, (Inquisition, Crusades and the BIBLE is TRUTH) for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the Pope.

Yes, the Papal bureacity is very aware of that fact.

I dare say God is not a liar. His WORD, the Bible is TRUTH and why those who follow Him, rely on HIS TRUTH. The Catholic church history is just another illustration of Joseph Gobbels strategy.

Obama used the same strategy from a secular point of view to get elected. The same kind of people fell for him too - lazy, spiritually discerned, evil, vile and ignorant people - all fell for Obama. Obama is evil to the core. Ah, Satan is on a holiday in more ways than one. Never think that Satan doesn't like "religion". He LOVES "religion". Satan LOVES to pervert it. He gives you a little truth and then PERVERTS it to the unsuspecting.

BE careful Nyer, time is short. Stop the vindictive games. You are transparent. The only reason you posted this thread was to try to elevate Catholicism over non Catholics as if lies are better than truth. Your tactic is silly and shows what is REALLY in your heart, NYer and it isn't love.

NYer Get to know HIM through the Bible before it is too late. You will ONLY find truth through the infallible and ONLY God is infallible. No mere mortal is infallible - NOT ONE - spiritually or otherwise and that includes the Pope. This too is in the Bible and still truth.

Having said that, I do know there are some Catholics that do have a personal relationship with Christ and just go along with stuff so as to not be excommunicated from their earthly family - on that note I rejoice for THEM! They finally found the truth, through the Bible and have the personal relationship He desires with them.

Beofre I move on, pay close attention to what the Lord HATES. Yes, He does HATE! He's not a pushover.

Proverbs 6:16-19

[16] These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

[17] A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

[18] An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

[19] A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

In case you don't get my points, PRIDE is a HUGE no-no with God. So between PRIDE which is the ROOT of what you are doing, refrain. I don't need to point out the sepcifics, that you are violating in Proverbs 6: 16-19. You can figure that out. Just know PRIDE is something God HATES.

[NYer]

You still did not answer the question. There are 30,000+ christian churches all claiming to have the Truth. Since there is only one Truth, only one Church can hold that Truth. To which Church has been entrusted that Truth? This is NOT an attack on non-Catholic christians.

[daniel1212]

That which can best demonstrate it has the Scriptural substantiated faith and its attestation. Now tell us by what means we can be sure that Rome is the infallible one true church.

[NYer]

That which can best demonstrate it has the Scriptural substantiated faith and its attestation.

And which of the 30,000+ would that be or does this rotate from one to the other? For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? In the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.

[daniel1212]

Like delivering a a man of great wrath, (Prov. 19:19) you can refute the arguments of dedicated Catholic who supposes she has answers, but you must do it again. I already exposed your “30,000+ "christian" churches fallacy in this thread (see 108) as it relates to Protestantism, and your superiority premise based on unity, to which you made no reply. Now you invoke it again, and it is yet invalid as a means of establishing the claim of Rome, as her basis for authenticity is invalid, rendering her to be just one of the many Christian denomination who are cults. Based upon her false gospel and her fruits, most of her members are not part of the universal body of Christ, whose authenticity is most essentially based upon faith in the Biblical gospel of God, by which she gains her members, not formal lineage or her own claims.

While Rome claims that her adherents may be accounted worthy of eternal life because of their very works done in God - thereby attributing salvific merit to work themselves, and builds a vast system based upon it - the Bible teaches that it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy God saves, when the sinner humbles Himself as a lost sinner, utterly unable to merit salvation, and thus relies solely upon the mercy of God in Christ, that being Jesus sinless shed blood and righteousness, resulting in the believer being washed, justified by imputed (not infused) righteousness, and sanctified (and thus are called saints). (Titus 3:5; 1Cor. 6:11; Rm. 3:25-5:1)

Rather than convicting her souls of this need for personal salvation and regeneration, Rome's system typically treats them as having been justified by proxy faith, and promotes perfunctory professions, and her souls overall evidence comparatively little Biblical fruits of regeneration.

As for your other attempted arguments,

1. aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible?

This sounds like a result of listening to RC apologists who argue in a vacuum. Those who hold that Scripture is the only supreme authority do not claim infallibility, but that, as attested in the Scriptures, the method of searching the infallible Scriptures - they being the only objective authority which is affirmed to be 100% inspired of God - will lead on to salvific truth and growth in grace, (2Tim. 3:15-17) if done with a Berean-type heart. (Acts 17:11)

This does not means that such cannot know something for sure, nor does it even mean that Rome cannot teach something infallible, but that it must be based upon Scriptural warrant, and its attestation, and not upon a formula and self-proclamation, as per Rome's claim.

2. In the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.

You need to realize the logical fallacy which you have just committed, that of stating your belief as proof for your belief, which does not make it so. But as the church only exists by faith, and those who preach a false gospel are damned, and Rome could not pass the examination given the apostles, (Acts 17:11) and in fact commends that method for determining truth, then Rome cannot lay claim to being the church of Christ, but those who hold to the gospel of grace by which souls are added to the church, (1Cor. 12:13) constitute the one body, and unified in core truths and a basic unity of the Spirit, though visibly expressed in different places. Again, see 108 for more on this aspect. And like as in Israel, which had not infallible magisterium, but true faith was preserved, God is able to raise up stones to continue to build His church even if some fail, and in the absence of a assuredly infallible magisterium, and is not bound to one formal entity. Nor has the church has never known comprehensive unity in all that can be exegeted.

As for “the Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture,” evangelicals also have a teaching office, but its basis for truth is by Scriptural warrant, while Rome's calim to be the Church is based upon her claim to be infallible, when speaking according to her infallible declared formula, which affirms her declaration of infallibility be infallible, and therefore her claim to be the one true church. Thus you again are depending upon circular reasoning.

Regarding “In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma,” again, Protestants and their evangelical churches also have a teaching office, and so the real difference is their basis for authority. And don't even try to propose that Rome manifests apostolic authority!

But you are also wrong in your assertion that Scripture is not there for individual interpretation, as in fact you are not only allowed a limited amount of dissent in non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary magisterium as well as her General magisterium, but “the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic apologist) . And substantial amounts of Catholics also disagree with even Rome's primary teachings, while individual denominations also have official unity, and show much more in moral views than Rome's, and a gospel faith which must essentially constitutes a true church.

You are also in error if supposing that an infallible magisterium removes the need for interpretation, as itself also requires interpretation.

You also have failed if you attempted to answer my question, “by what means is one to be convinced that Rome is the one true church?”

[Christian_Capitalist]

Luther opened Pandora's box when he said anyone could interpret scripture. Here is yet another victim.

Perhaps if Anne Rice had not decided to become Roman Catholic, she would have enjoyed more Biblical spiritual leadership and discipline.

It is a shame she decided to join Roman Catholicism, a denomination so evidently and utterly incapable of cultivating any nascent tendencies towards Christianity which might perhaps have existed in her heart.

(but somehow, that's Saint Martin Luther's fault.... sheesh...)

[NYer]

Why is it that when Evangelicals post, they never cite the Gospels?

[daniel1212]

Why is it that when Evangelicals post, they never cite the Gospels?

A complaint is hardly a response. But the answer is that they do — or should — when fitting. But an emphasis upon the Gospels in doctrinal questions over the rest on the New Testament is one that is common among Catholics, and indicative of a superficial understanding of Biblical hermeneutics, or means of interpretation. It is an established hermeneutic that revelation, being progressive and yet complementary in nature, the full explanation of what was written before is manifest in what comes after it, though understanding of the prior revelation is also necessary. Thus we more fully understand the intent of the O.T. sacrificial system in the light of Hebrews, and it is in the light of the epistles, such as Ephesians, that we best understand what the church (referred to in Mt. 18) is. Etc.

Regarding interpreting the O.T., the official study notes to the official Catholic Bible for America ( NAB, St. Joseph edition, 1970) states that "the books and the O.T. and all their parts, caught up in the proclamation of the gospel, acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament, (Mt. 5:17; Lk:24:27; Rm. 16:25-26; 2Cor. 14:16) [references theirs] and in turn shed light on it and explain it."

Regarding the gospels and the "epistles of Paul and the other apostolic writings," it states that while the 4 gospels enjoy a special place as "the principal witness of the life and teaching of the incarnate Word," it is the other apostolic writings which confirm such, and wherein "His true teaching is more and more fully stated,..for the Lord Jesus was with His apostles as He had promised, (Mt. 28:20) and sent them the advocate Spirit who would lead them into the fullness of the truth.” (Jn. 16:13) Of course, they also sanction a liberal interpretive grid.

A fitting basic summation is that the O.T. is the Preparation, the Gospels are the Presentation (of the Lord and His works and teachings), the Book of Acts is the Proclamation, the Epistles and letters are the Explanation, and the Book of Revelation is the Consummation.

Now the question that should be asked is, “Seeing Acts and other apostolic writings explain the gospels, and were written under the same inspiration as the gospels, why do some Catholics object to the primary reliance upon them when it challenges their doctrine?” The answer is because they are less definitive as concerns certain doctrines at issue.

It should be noticed that the Gospels are primarily narratives and basic teachings, and do not provide much in the way of theological explanations as concerns such subjects such as soteriology, ecclessiology, or eschatology, but which are found in the proceeding revelation of the rest of the New Testament. In addition, the manner of Peter's leadership, the foundation of the church, the use of binding and loosing (Acts 13:19,11; 15: 1Cor. 5:4,5) and other teachings are manifested therein.

It is thus that when establishing the Deity of Christ, i will refer mainly to the gospel of John and Hebrews, but when dealing with soteriology i will mainly reference Romans and other books of the N.T. Left to the gospels alone, we might conclude that salvation requires giving all one's goods away, (Mt. 19:21) or half, (Lk. 19:8) or simply believing, (Jn. 3:16), and that such is merited by works, (Mt. 25:34-36) or because of a poor spirit, (Mt. 5:3). However, by prior revelation taken together, and in the light of the extensive defining gospel revelation entrusted first to the theologian Paul, (Gal. 1:11,12) and supplemented by such as James and Peter, we see that it is God-given faith, (Eph. 2:8) out of a poor and contrite heart, (Ps. 34:18) and that will result in works of faith, (Jn. 10:27,28) which appropriates imputed righteousness, (Rm. 3:9-5:1) like as Abraham manifested. (Gn. 15:6)

As concerns issues such as whether the word of God was normally written, and whether that the Scriptures became the supreme doctrinal authority or an assuredly infallible magisterium, both the Old Testament and the gospels and the rest of the New Testament abundantly testifies to the former being the case, as the only objective authority which is affirmed to be wholly inspired by God.

Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 34:1,18,28; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; Josh. 1:8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 23:6; 24:26; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 12:22; 2Ki. 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 34:14,15,18,21,24; 34:30; 35:12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;

Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14; 8:17; 11:10; 12:3,5,17; 13:35; 19:4; 21:4,13,16,42; 22:29,31; 24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,34; Mark 1:2; 7:3; 9:12,13; 10:5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; Lk. 2:3,23; 3:4; 4:4,8,10,16,17,20; 7:27; 10:26; 18:31; 19:46; 20:17,42; 22:37,38; 24:22.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 2:17; 5:39,46,47; 6:31,45; 7:42,52; 8:17; 12:14; 10; 34; 12:14,16; 15:25; 20:31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 7:42; 8:28,30,32; 7:42; 3:33; 13:29,33; 15:15,21; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 23:5; 24:14; Rom 1:2,17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:3,13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21; 16:16; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 4:6; 9:9,10; 10:7,11; 14:21; 15:3,4,45,54; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; Gal. 3:10,13; 4:22,27; Eph. 3:3,4; Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 2Tim. 3:15; Heb. 10:7; 13:22; 1Pet. 1:16; 5:12; 2Pet. 3:15,16; 1Jn. 2:21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11; 22:6,7;10,18,19

See here for more.

[Pilgrim's Progress]

“Who has the authority to interpret scripture in the Protestant world?”

Here is a verse my four-year-old granddaughter has no problem with . . .

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).