And just who was it who taught you this great truth? Did you sit down one day with your Bible and prayerfully read what it said and come to this conclusion by the written word?
Or by chance could it have been the ones who wanted to convince you they had this infallible utterance you were to obey that gave you this truth?
Paul was the last apostle besides John who God spoke to. There has been no one since them. If they didn’t say it, then you have no idea what God wanted if it’s not in the scripture.
John said, 1 John 2: 27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
If we have the anointing in us, the Holy Spirit, we are capable of teaching our selves, and we need no man to teach us.
Paul said, Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Paul who was to the early church speaking for God, told us that when a man taught anything that couldn’t be directly tied to Paul’s teachings, then that man should be accursed, and then he repeated to make sure you took it seriously.
Now tell me again how the RCC has come up with all their teachings that by no stretch of the imagination connected to any thing Paul ever taught, and still make the claim they follow scripture.
The Scriptures are (and must always be) in the preeminent position, but "preeminent" still accepts that there are situations like the OT King where our interpretation of Scripture could be in conflict with the Truth.
The story you related is not in the most popular Bible in the world, so why spend this time on a hypotheticals that did not, or could not ever happen? If it had happened it would be the fault of the king who did not know God or his prophet.
If a traffic patrolman is directing traffic out of a parking lot, and the light is red, and he continues sending out cars while holding the traffic back who has the green light, he takes authority over the mechanical light because he is a live person who wears a badge or a uniform that identifies him as a true represenative of the law.
But, if some guy is out there wearing dirty jeans and a tee shirt with a 5 day growth of beard, and no patrol car present or any form of ID, then you had better not run the light, because both of you will be held accountable if there is an accident.
You can tell the judge that you saw the light was red, but this guy seemed to have authority, so I pulled right out into on coming traffic, it’s not my fault judge, I trusted that man.
JH
Which you follow with a story that is not in the "most popular bible in the world" (I'm not really sure what that's a reference to).
I think you missed my point. If a Catholic believes that God speaks through His Church, then that Cathecism and the Scriptures come from the same Source. Dave may clearly prefer Scripture, but cannot fathom a "if you only had one" question any more than Reggie could fathom the "if you only had Christ or Scripture" example.
And, of course, your policeman example makes my point perfectly (thanks!). Because that's the parallel role of the church in the given example. It's just that you would be standing in from of the cop saying:
"I don't recognize your name in the Code. I don't see your uniform described in the Law. I don't believe that 'policeman' is a valid title at all and I do not recognize that you have any authority in this matter at all. In fact, I can cite lots of examples of people wearing that uniform acting unlawfuly, so you cannot be legitimate and should not even associate yourself with the so-called 'government' (come out of that uniform!). I once spent a couple hours a day studying the legal code books with others who disagree with your authority and that of your so-called 'judges' (that cannot refer to the 'judges' listed in the law books) and we've decided that we independently are capable of interpreting when we can go through this intersection and when 'red' truly means 'red' and when it is purely 'metaphorically red'. We hardly ever agree with each other, you understand, but we all know that you are wrong in your interpretation."
Which you follow with a story that is not in the "most popular bible in the world" (I'm not really sure what that's a reference to).
I think you missed my point. If a Catholic believes that God speaks through His Church, then that Cathecism and the Scriptures come from the same Source. Dave may clearly prefer Scripture, but cannot fathom a "if you only had one" question any more than Reggie could fathom the "if you only had Christ or Scripture" example.
And, of course, your policeman example makes my point perfectly (thanks!). Because that's the parallel role of the church in the given example. It's just that you would be standing in from of the cop saying:
"I don't recognize your name in the Code. I don't see your uniform described in the Law. I don't believe that 'policeman' is a valid title at all and I do not recognize that you have any authority in this matter at all. In fact, I can cite lots of examples of people wearing that uniform acting unlawfuly, so you cannot be legitimate and should not even associate yourself with the so-called 'government' (come out of that uniform!). I once spent a couple hours a day studying the legal code books with others who disagree with your authority and that of your so-called 'judges' (that cannot refer to the 'judges' listed in the law books) and we've decided that we independently are capable of interpreting when we can go through this intersection and when 'red' truly means 'red' and when it is purely 'metaphorically red'. We hardly ever agree with each other, you understand, but we all know that you are wrong in your interpretation."