d12: No: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21)"
It's pretty telling that you omitted the preceding verse, 2 Peter 1:20, which provides the context for your quote. It states: "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation". The verse you then cited, 2 Peter 1:21, simply establishes that it is not the men talking, but the Holy Spirit, providing the interpretations.
Since the Holy Spirit is inerrant. Since you are not willing to state that your interpretations are inerrant and infallible, only that is less so in comparison to "Rome" (as determined by little old fallible you) then you are admitting that in every dispute of interpretation and doctrine between and among Protestants is proof that at least one of them is not being guided by the Holy Spirit. Since there are literally thousands of differing Protestant Interpretations and doctrines, which is the "Golden Denomination" to which all others should heed.
The rest of your prattle was simply an overly wordy regurgitation of "yes, but not Rome". I get that the basis of a fringe Protestant's doctrine is established by its contrast with Catholic doctrine, and the greater the differences the better, but if you are not even going to be honest about Scripture and won't address legitimate questions with cogent answers I really can't see any reason to continue discussing this with you.
My quote was in affirmation of the statement,
“Do you deny that God chose otherwise ordinary men to record the infallible and inerrant written Word?,” which is Rome's position as well.
The only thing that is telling is the private interpretation of some Catholics in using it to disallow Protestant private interpretation. To my knowledge, it has never been infallibly interpreted as disallowing Scripture “being expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit,” as one Catholic Bible interprets as forbidding, yet the subject is not how Scripture is understood, but how prophecy was written, that it was not a product of their own understanding, but was such as Peter describes in 1Pt. 1:10,11: “Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” These men did not understand all of what they were writing, and 1Pt. 1:20 cannot be forbidding what the Bereans did.
“Since you are not willing to state that your interpretations are inerrant and infallible, only that is less so in comparison to "Rome”
Your private interpretation, or reading, of what i stated in total is deficient here, as is your attempt to express it. I believe can infallibly and inerrantly declare based upon what is clearly stated in the Scriptures that God is, and has communicated to certain souls mentioned in the Bible. And so may you and Rome, but which (Trent) even allows that believers can know, by “special revelation,” they are of the elect who will be saved. Talk about subjectivity! On the other end, I do not hold i can declare anything close to certainty as knowing the year of the Lord's return. And i certainly do not infallibly declare that i am and will be infallible and inerrantly whenever i speak on faith and morals to all within my house or the like.
You are admitting that in every dispute of interpretation and doctrine between and among Protestants is proof that at least one of them is not being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Here you have stated the obvious, which is just as true for Catholics. Do you realize that “most of what Catholics believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly.” (Robert Sungenis). And the great differences of opinions that do and can exist with Rome? Start with Genesis (old earth, young earth, etc.) You do have have core truths which require assent of faith, and evangelical type church have their core truths, most of which we both agree on.
Since there are literally thousands of differing Protestant Interpretations and doctrines, which is the "Golden Denomination" to which all others should heed.
The competition is close among some. Yet Rome, along with the Mormons and Watchtower Society and the like — which like Rome, look to an infallible interpreter and deny core salvific truths which Protestantism historically held, but which have a greater degree of unity than Rome — is not in the running.
Comprehensive doctrinal unity have ever been a goal not realized, but oneness begins with the Father and the Son being in each person, (Jn. 17:23 and what the institutionalized churches lack and born again disciples in evangelical denominations overall enjoy is an essential unity of the Spirit. Their religious life began with a a Scripture-based faith conversion and regeneration, resulting in a relationship-based religion in which denomination is overall not a primary identity, and thus they can the more easily go to another evangelical type church or gatherings with believers who likewise were converted. Abundant different interpretations also exist within Catholicism, and would be more apparent if commitment to doctrine purity was comparable to evangelicals, and the main difference is that they do not split into more than the 12 or so Catholic denominations, except to leave for Protestant churches, as their religion is much a church-based relationship, which fosters faith that she will see them to glory, due to her power.
The rest of your prattle was simply an overly wordy regurgitation of "yes, but not Rome".
Not simply, but more and substantively, but I shall leave that judgment to less hostile witnesses.
I've always love the smugness of Roman Catholics who really have left the true faith of the early fathers. The early fathers had no problem in deciding what was inerrant and infallible scripture and what wasn't. Funny, when claiming what was inerrant, they selected just a few books of scriptures. They never once mentioned any other writings as being infallible and inerrant. Yet Roman Catholics want to make just about everything inerrant-at least everything today that is their writing that they wish to agree with. The rest they will brush under the rug. Do you still believe the holy decrees of the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 that says you should go and fight for the Holy Lands?
The Orthodox rejects the Nicene Creed, the infallibility of the Pope, and the blasphemous interpretation of Mary; yet Roman Catholics see no problem in reconciliation. They embrace homosexuals telling them they're really OK, but don't do anything a priest wouldn't do.
Truth is Roman Catholics have changed the interpretation of the atonement, of faith, of grace, of judgment, and just about every other major doctrine. There really isn't anything left of Christianity in Roman Catholicism except funny hats and lots of pomp. And those weren't Christian either.
Roman Catholics pretend to based doctrine upon "improving" on the interpretation of the fathers, yet they distort and depart from the original interpretation. They have follow the heresy of Pelagius which the early church rightfully condemn yet claim they trace their roots back to Augustine. They worship (venerate) the creature rather than the creator. They've changed the First Commandment in their text simply to avoid embarrassment at breaking it.
It would almost be laughable if it wasn't such a pity. Yet we are reminded of the billions of Catholics around the world who interject pagan rituals into mass. And we are led to believe this is OK.