Search results

Sorry, but quoting a Scripture out-of-context doesn't answer my question. Who - as in, which Church or individual - has the infallible interpretation of Scripture? Do you? If not you, then who? Non-Catholic churches and individuals come up with endless and differing interpretations of...

Thanks for the link. What a pity it's drivel written by yet another brainwashed, gullible and ignorant sucker.

So who has not been misled and has the one, correct interpretation of Scripture? You?

So how come you non-Catholics come up with thousands of different interpretations of Scripture? There must be thousands of different Holy Spirits, all teaching different things! Speaking of which, your interpretation of what the apostle John wrote is easily proven to be wrong. If there is...

No. It is the Church that is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, but is rejected by brainwashed and gullible suckers who don't know what they're talking about.

You keep using this quote even though it has been pointed out to you that your interpretation of it is illogical. If the Holy Spirit teaches all things to whoever reads the Bible, then everyone would interpret the Bible in exactly the same way - but that is not what happens. What happens is...

You didn't answer my question ... which probably means you don't want to admit that you don't know anyone who can infallibly interpret the Scriptures. If you can't find anyone who can infallibly interpret the Scriptures, then the Scriptures are useless.

Are you saying you don't know anyone who infallibly interprets the Scriptures? If so, you must be stumbling around in fog of spiritual confusion and uncertainty - in which case, I feel sorry for you.

Arrogance is believing any individual can infallibly interpret the Scriptures without the supernatural guidance of the Church.

So you don't believe you must repent of your sins in order to be saved?

Scripture is not the primary source of Christianity - the Church is, because the Church is the "fullness of Christ (Eph 1:22-23). And that Churchi is of course the Catholic Church.

According the stupidity of Sola Scriptura, any uneducated half-wit can read the Bible and arrive at the correct interpretation.

Must a believer repent of his sins in order to saved? What does James mean when he says "a man is justified by WORKS and NOT by FAITH ALONE", and "faith without WORKS is dead" (James 2:24-26)?

Let me get this straight: You're saying that when Jesus said, "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" in Matt 16:18, he was not referring to the Church, but to something Peter said?

You're a slow learner - you still don't understand the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. You seem determined to remain an ignorant dunce.

Has Jesus told you personally that you will be saved? Probably not - in which case, you have no way of knowing with certainty that you will be saved ... which is why salvation is described as a "hope" (ie, not a certainty) in at least fifteen places in the NT.

There are at two ways o Add on's are permitted if they don't contradict the foundational teachings. You don't know what the original foundational teachings were, because all you have to go on is the Scriptures ... and even then, it's only your fallible interpretation of the Scriptures.

You didn't answer my question - which Scripture says the Church can't add traditions?

But we're not talking about the "foundation process" - we're talking about what happens after that - ie, the successors of the leader of the Church being infallibly led by the Holy Spirit. So the verse you quoted is irrelevant to the argument of papal infallibility.

It is actually not so much a matter of proof, but more a matter of being led by the Holy Spirit. You cannot prove that God exists, for example, yet you believe God does exist. And some people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence presented to them.