<continuing with review of “Bible Only” discussion>
POINT 18: Scott, you are so sensitive to the comparison to known cults that you don’t listen to what is being said. When I asked for a substantive difference between the Mormon position in regards to continuing revelation as found in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you come back with the difference between Roman belief on the nature of God and Mormon belief on the nature of God! Don’t you see how you missed the point? I wasn’t saying “Romanism and Mormonism are identical”. I was saying, “Romanism and Mormonism share the same view of revelation and authority” not “Romanism and Mormonism have the same view of God.” So, when you go flying off the handle and say, “the fact that you can’t see this lessens *your* credibility” you do nothing to my credibility at all–all you demonstrate is that you are not listening to what is being said. The fact remains, and stands out for all who are reading our conversation, that the Roman systems claims, as exemplified in your posts, the same authority and doctrine of revelation as the Mormon church. You reject the Mormon claims in regards to revelation–I doubt you find any authority in the Book of Mormon–but the question is, why? On what basis? You claim the same things that the Mormon does about the insufficiency of the Bible, an infallible leader (yours is the Pope, theirs is the Prophet), a priesthood (they claim yours is apostate, and theirs was re-established by Peter, James and John!) and priesthood authority– the whole nine yards! So, I ask again, and hope to get a logical, non-emotional answer, can someone tell me the substantive difference between the Mormon claims and the Roman claims?
Now, I am totally lost as to how you can defend the author’s claim (who is this author, anyway?) that to assert the sufficiency of the Bible “does away with” the Holy Spirit! How is that so? It certainly does do away with man’s traditions as an equal source of authority–that is granted readily. But how does it do away with the Holy Spirit? The Spirit does not speak with a different voice than the Scriptures, does He?
Finally, you asked, in all caps, “STICK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND, PLEASE!” As I’ve pointed out, my comparison between the Roman view of authority and revelation and the Mormon view is completely in line with the current discussion–your unwillingness to recognize those similarities does not in any way make me guilty of not sticking to the issues.
POINT 19: Again, Scott, you cannot dismiss the simple fact that you are engaging in the same claims as the JWs and Mormons by calling it “folly”. Document it! Show me where your claims about the Bible needing an “infallible interpreter” are any different than the very same claims, made from the same passages, as found in the pages of the Watchtower. Till then the claim stands, and its importance to the issue is clear for all to see–as is your dodging of the issue.
2 Peter 1:20 has been spoken of above, and its meaning explained.
No, I didn’t mention 2 Peter 3:16–so? It doesn’t even begin to say what your author alleges! It says that there are difficult things in Paul’s writings that the unlearned and unstable distort to their own destruction. Yes? So? It does *not* say that this means that there must be an “official interpreter” made up of a church headed by one man who claims to be the Vicar of Christ (that’s the Holy Spirit) and the Holy Father (that’s God the Father)! Hence, your “implications” are not even a part of the passages under consideration.
Now, I don’t know all you said about Acts 8–if you will look back at your upload (#1395) you will see that you must have exceeded the 150 line limit, and your comments end with “but…” I don’t know how I can respond, other than to note that you accuse me of *lying* later on in regards to this passage. But, the better part of wisdom is to await your correction of your upload error. What did you say?
Well, that’s all 19 points so far. I’ll try to get around the points 20 through 25, but most of them just reiterate the same errors that have already been dealt with. I do wish to reply to your closing comments in #1396, however. I already provided some rebuttal to this with my original replies, but I wanted to respond to your mention of Mike Middleton and the accusation of “lying” that was made here back in May or June.
When I said that Mike Middleton was lying, I provided documented information that demonstrated the content of these lies. I still have all of those posts, should you dispute that. You haven’t provided me enough real documented material to put on a pinhead, yet you can parallel the situations? Really Scott, simmer down and think through what you are saying. We are not the only ones reading this, you know.