Featured The Final Authority of Scripture

Is Jesus a high enough authority for you? Jesus said except a man be "born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" and Jesus said, "ye must be born again."

You have admitted that you are not "born again" but separated yourselves from "You 'Born agains" thus separating yourself from Christ who said the new birth is an absolute "must." DHK on the other hand was simply agreeing with Christ. Who are those religious people who do not agree with Christ, who oppose his words? What happens to them on judgement day?

 

But so are you! However, my opinion with regard to the characteristic immorality of the entire history of Catholicism matches God's own description of her "The Mother of HARLOTS" and the "Great WHORE" as these are terms that characterize her immorality.

 

The Great "Harlot" or Great "Whore" in Revelation 17 is not only identified with the city of Rome in Romans 17:18 but she continues to exist in that characterization until the final "hour" when the yet future ten kingdoms join the Antichrist to battle Christ:

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
14 ¶ These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

When John wrote this those ten kingdoms did not exist. The kingdoms come into existence just before the "beast" turns to fight Christ. They join him in fighting Christ in that final "hour" of this age. However, their preceding act when joining the beast to fight Christ is to destroy this "Great Whore" at Rome.

Secular Rome as ruler over Rome ceased to exist in the 5th century. Since that time Rome has been ruled by RELIGIOUS ROME - the Roman Catholic Church. Those ten beasts have not yet joined with the Beast in "one hour" to battle against Christ (the battle described in the very next chapter - 19:12-21) when the beast and false prophets are cast into Gehenna (19:21-20:10).

The Great Whore has always been around since Genesis as she is false religion in UNION with secular government. She was instituted with the tower of Babel as organized state religion. She came to her zenith with Religious Babylon under Nebchadnezzar. She then joined herself with each succeeding world power (Medes and Persians, then Greece and finally Rome). She has remained with Rome as a world power until Rome's decline in the fifth century and now she has become that world power (the Vatican) and remains so until she is destroyed by the yet future coming ten kingdoms who join in with the Antichrist to fight Christ. She remains unto this day and will remain IN ROME until that final "hour." This has been the consistent belief of all those she has persecuted, perverted and killed that she called the "Anabaptists." This is also the consistent view of all the Reformed Catholics or the Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc.).

 

It does not matter! What matters is that Jesus said it is a "must" and you deny that. First,admit it is a "must" then we can talk about what it is or is not.

 

That is what all who can't understand scripture always say. Yours is an admission of ignorance. Prove it is my interpretation and not what the scriptures teach. I am prepared to demonstrate it is precisely what the scriptures teach. Do you know how it can be proved or disproved? Probably not. The answer is very simple, the true interpretation fits all of the contextual facts whereas all false interpretations fail to fit the immediate context. But, the Bible means nothing to Catholics anyone. Catholics are like parrots. Rome feeds you crackers and tell you what to believe and you just repeat it like a parrot. Whereas Biblical Christianity is told to think for themselves and try the spirits. However, like all cults (yes that is what I call the Catholic church) they are mind controllers. They tell you what you should believe and not believe.

 

Your response is typical from those who do not understand scriptures. To such there is no right way to interpret scripture, there is no context that determines right or wrong interpretation. So Paul's instruction to Timothy becomes meaningless words.There is no need to "study" there is no work involved, there is no rightly dividing scripture because it is all a matter of personal interpretation rather than absolute truth determined by context. No wonder you reject God's Word as absolute authority in faith and practice, because it provides no wiggle room for contradicting views, individualized preferences and man made traditions all of which is embraced by the Old Harlot.

 

It is one thing to respect people, but quite another thing to respect errors. I have nothing against you as a person, but those things you hold dear as doctrine I wholly detest and reject. The Catholic church is an institution and a false instititution (like many others) not because the people are any less sinners than any other people constituting other institutions but because what they believe as an institution is evil, although it is concealed under the wrappings of charity, Christianity and Christian language.

You don't know what you are talking about. There are those on this forum who were raised Catholics, defended Catholicism and then experienced "new birth" and no longer remained Catholic. There are those like me who were raised in one kind of faith but due to study of Scripture are now a different kind of faith. So you really are speaking ignorantly in order to conceal ignorance of scripture.

Yeah, isn't liberty of conscience beautiful in America. However during the dark ages Rome persecuted and killed those who chose to think and believe differently than their dogma. Don't you realize your American History? America refused to have Roman CAtholics in political power, especially presidents because Roman Catholics in other countries and in time past forbid religious liberty. That was one of the biggest fears in America and why it took so long for a Catholic, like John F. Kennedy to gain presidency of this liberty loving country.

 

Really? Baptists were instrumental in establishing religious liberty in America. Liberty of Conscience has been a fundamental tenet of Baptists/Anabaptists from the apostles.

Paul did not tell Timothy to be taught the scriptures by the church (although the church has a legitimate duty to do that to its members) but rather expressed his individual responsibility to "study to show yourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed but rightly dividing the word of truth."

John tells his readers that they need not that any man teach them, but the same anointed which they received teacheth them all things (1 Jn. 2:29). The Holy Spirit is the teacher of the true child of God.

Just because there is much confusion with regard to proper interpretation of scriptures, does not mean there is not a proper or right way to interpret. Indeed, all false doctrine is due to violating simple rules for proper interpretation. Indeed, all false denominations are due to violating simple rules for proper interpretation of scriptures. The basic error behind all false doctrine is very simple, jerking a word, a statement, a passage out of its grammatical/historical immediate context.

For example, nearly every doctrine held by Rome is founded upon jerking scriptures out of context and it can be easily demonstrated by those who apply basic rules for proper interpretation that is normally used in interpreting passages from any book. That is why Catholics in general simply mouth Bible texts, texts jerked out of context, and then when confronted with their error, they have no other place to go but to the most common but unjustified accusation which is "that is your interpretation." The fact is that their interpretation has been proven to be contextually unjustified and so in order to protect their cherished Roman Catholic propaganda about scripture they have no other alternative than to make this silly argument. Silly because THEY CANNOT JUSTIFY FROM THE BIBLICAL CONTEXT THEIR ACCUSATION - all they can do is make it in order to flee and then turn and repeat their proven errors once again.

That is precisely what you and your friend have done with this thread. I have contextually proven Isiah 8:16-20 is Messanic and refers to the completion of the Biblcial canon within the first century and that it is the final authority over what anyone may "SPEAK" (Isa. 8:20).

First you charged it was my interpretation. Second, you ignored it. Third, you attempted to contextually challenge it only to be proven to be in error and now you return and flee to this unjustified accusation "that is your interpretation" after your interpretations have failed you.

The same cycle is true with the Berean example in Acts 17.

The same cycleis true with Jesus submitting tradition to scripture as final authority in Matthew 15.

In each case your mouths have been shut and so you flee to this accusation as your only refuge. An accusation that is unjustified because my interpretation has stood the test of context while yours have failed in each and every case. An honest person would admit this but instead, you and your friend simply repeat the same cycle over and over again, which is (1) Accuse that is our interpretation; (2) Ignore it; (3) Attempt to provide an interpretation which fails the context (4) Return to the first accusation. This is the cultic method used by every false denomination including yours. Thus you identify your denomination with all false denominations and their many interpretational errors due to the very same simple problem - jerked out of context. You want to put my accusation to the challenge? Then lets explore Isaiah 8:16-20 again. I will repeat my exposition and you attempt to demonstrate your charge that it is my interpretation rather than the contextual truth. You have made the accusation and therefore the burden is upon you to justify it! I am more than ready to defend my interpretation simply by the context.