John 17.20-23

The interesting part is that there is universal agreement on the 66 no matter how our RC friends would prefer to think of it as "confusing" to those that accept God's 66 books.

God is Sovereign and He led the ONE TRUE HEBREW nation CHURCH to come up with the 39 JUST as He guided the New Testament first century Christian church in the 27. Instead of the politics of what later evolved to become the Catholic Church - holding the sovereign control of scripture - it was God from Moses to John.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ron:
Your response to my post is a typical denominational answer when they cannot substantiate their claim. They cry,"that's your interpretation." They somehow think that because someone other than themselves rightly divides the truth, they are exonerated from submitting to the divine will of God. I believe Jesus had something to say about this in Mat. 7:13,14;21-24.
You remind me of the folks in Athens as they spent their time in nothing else but either to tell,or hear some new thing. Acts 17:21. I wonder if there interpretation was correct. Acts 17:22-23.
There was a Lawyer in Luke who asked a very important question. In fact, his INTERPRETATION was essential to receiving eternal life. I wonder do you think it was essential he get it right? The Bible says,in Luke 10:25-28, ¶And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26  He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27  And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28  And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
Jesus did not say go ask the magisterium how it reads? Of course, that is your problem.

 

No, I was simply responding to your assertion that Carson does not believe in the New Testament. Your claim is based on the fact that he does not interpret Scripture the same as you.

You imply that you alone have the correct interpretation.

You do this again in this last post of yours.

Is your correct interpretation based on personal infallibility or some special knowledge?

Ron

 

RON:
I did not refer to my personal interpretation. In fact, I simply listed and quoted several scriptures that stand in oppositon to what the Catholic church teaches. This is common knowledge among those who do comparative studies of the Bible and religious dogma.

When Jesus asked the Lawyer how readest thou? He wanted to know what the law said, He wanted the lawyer to know it as God had given it, not as he wanted it to read or as he thought it read. He was to interpret it CORRECTLY or as Jesus affirms in Luke 10: 28 Jesus told him" thou hast answered RIGHT. He did not say that is your interpretation and, therefore it could possibly be right or wrong. One must draw the rational conclusion that men are expected to interpret God's word the way he wants it to be done. In other words, RIGHT.

Are we to imply the Lawyer was inspired or infallible because he interpreted the word as God desired? Absolutely not! I have already posted the credentials for inspiration. Mark 16:17-20, II Cor. 12:12, Acts 8:18.

Men who claim infallibility are liars. Rev. 2:2. Men who claim to be divinely inspired today are liars. Rev. 2:2. Men who claim truth is subjective and/ or is a matter of personal interpretation attempt to make Jesus a Liar. John 8:32. The real lie is told by those who convince themselves that truth is based on ones own personal interpretation and, if one believes it sincerely, it is true. II Thes. 2:10,11.

NO, I am not infallible. However, I am rational. Furthermore, I can make conclusions warranted by what God has revealed, and get it right just like the Lawyer.

The lawyer got it right by reading the law. He obviously understoood the words and made the rational conclusion based on the evidence.( The Law). What special knowledge did he have? Was he infallible? If so, how do you know?

 

Reading anything requires interpretation.

That someone else got something right says nothing for your interpretation, your impressive logic skills not withstanding.

Sorry, Frank, it still comes down to "merely your interpretation" which could quite easily be wrong. Unless you want to claim infallibility.

Are you saying that you could not possibly be wrong? If so, then you are claiming infallibility.

Ron

 

(Frank)

Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy
mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

(Singer)

With the onslaught of reliance on the Magesterium (whatever that is) and
robotic-like dependence upon prone-to-sin corruptible human Catholic leaders,
one would get the idea that their intentions are to replace the workings of
the Holy Spirit with a system of rules, regulations and its supposed applications
and completely overlook common sense. In doing so, it would replace the
reasoning of scripture as quoted above with a complete new set of rules
governing salvation.

I'm becoming convinced that Catholicism IS a Different Gospel .

I'm just being rational...........

Singer