The most dangerous false doctrine is the private interpretation of scriptures (”they wrestle with the scriptures to their own destruction!”) (”No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”), Closely followed by once saved always saved. “ I work out my salvation in fear and trembling” saith the apostle Paul.
Sola scriptural and sola fide. Two death nails. “The Church is the bulwark and pillar of all truth!” “The Church is ONE as Jesus and the Father are one!” The 39,000 Christian denominations are music to Satan’s ( who is the master of division) ears. “Unless you eat me flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you. For my flesh is TRUE FOOD! Does this offend you?” The words of Jesus Christ be praised and v heeded!
Private and Subjective interpretation of the Bible has been going on for over 2000 years.
The most dangerous false doctrine is the private interpretation of scriptures
No one would argue with that. But that position has the same problem as man made institution interpretation of scripture. Which if you think about it is still private interpretation of scripture.
So where does that leave one? What does God say on the matter?
Jer 31:33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
The new covenant is a direct relationship with God, being born again, and the holy spirit teaching through the scripture.
You mean like Catholics who decide which modern Catholic teachings are valid based upon their judgment of ancient church teachings, versus basically obeying any public teaching of popes and councils?
"(”they wrestle with the scriptures to their own destruction!”) "
Distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
" (”No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”)"
Which is an example of the very wresting of scripture that 2 Peter 3:16 condemns, for the text (2 Peter 1:20,21) you refer to is simply not referring to understanding Scripture, but is referring to prophecy not being the product of the prophets own understanding, since they themselves did not understand what they wrote, as comparing Scripture with Scripture attests: "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (1 Peter 1:11)
"Closely followed by once saved always saved."
Saving faith is only that which finally endures, and Scripture warns about falling away, (Gal 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39) but easy believism is mostly what Rome promotes, as she manifestly considers even proabortion, prohomosexual public figures (Teddy K RCs) to be members in life and in death, while Scripture provides for presently knowing you possess eternal life. (1Jn. 5:13) And following the commandments (Math 19:17), preserving in good works (Rom 2:7), striving for holiness (Heb 12:14), praying in earnest (1 Tess 5:17), and fighting against the forces of evil (Eph 6:11), and the selfish demands of the flesh (Rom 8:13) describes faith, and is consistent with sola fide, as shown. In contrast to RC teaching on salvation via becoming actually good enough to enter Heaven via Purgatory.
". Two death nails. “The Church is the bulwark and pillar of all truth!”
Which is "wresting of scripture, for 1 Tim. 3:15 does not mean that the church is the ensured infallible judge of what is of God and the meaning of it, for in the Greek, "church living God pillar and ground the truth" - and with pillar and ground both basically meaning "support" - does not show us that that. Not only is the church that of the "living God" and not the dead institutional form that Catholicism overall is, but nowhere is the church presented as either the originating source of all Truth or the ensured infallible authority on it, but instead, Scripture provided the epistemological doctrinal and prophetic foundation for the NT church, which it is grounded in and supports, being the support "of the Truth."
"“The Church is ONE as Jesus and the Father are one!” The 39,000 Christian denominations are music to Satan’s ( who is the master of division) ears.
Neither Rome with her many divisions nor all the claimed 39,000 Christian denominations are the one true church, as instead the only one true church and to which Christ is married is the mystical body of Christ, into which the Spirit baptizes the convert. (1 Co. 12:13). For this body alone only and always consists of true believers, while the organic fellowships in which believers are to be part of end up being admixtures of wheat and chaff.
As a poster who_would_fardels_bear delineated:
so-called traditional Catholics have split themselves into almost as many sects as Protestants have. There are:
1. Church Militant who chastise the Bishops but not the Pope
2. The Wanderer supporters
3. The Remnant led by the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who now disowns The Wanderer
4. The SSPX
5. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren't members.
6. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy
7. Those former members of the SSPX that believe Fellay is too deferential to the Pope
8. Sedevacantists who believe Francis is the first anti-Pope or non-Pope
9. Sedevacantists who believe John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid
10. Those that believe in various conspiracy theories that the Church is now completely controlled by: The Vatican Bank, Gays, Masons, Space Aliens, the Illuminati or some combination of the above
11. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who either quietly or on record disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic
12. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who are willing to call the Pope a heretic but are also willing to wait for the process of replacement to unfold in an orderly manner
(NOTE: Church Militant may have changed its position recently to be more directly in opposition to the Pope but I haven't kept track.)
And as another poster wryly summed it,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” - Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html)
Thus we have, Is Catholicism about to break into three?
Archbishop Viganò: We Are Witnessing Creation of a ‘New Church ’
The SSPX's Relationship with Francis: Is it Traditional? post #6
Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism?
The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope...If Francis is a true Pope …
"“Unless you eat me flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you. For my flesh is TRUE FOOD! "
More wresting of Scripture, as well as implicitly denying Lumen Gentium 16.
Due to the inability of Catholic priests to produce what a plainly literal reading of the words of consecration at the Last Supper would mean, then Catholicism has had to engage in an attempted complex metaphysical explanation to justify their quite non-literal understanding.
For what a plainly literal understanding of “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you," (1 Corinthians 11:24) ) and "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:27-28) would mean is that what the apostles consumed at the Last Supper was not that of non-existent inanimate objects that are said to be the “true body and blood” of Christ despite appearances and tests to the contrary, but would manifestly be the same manifest physical body and blood that proved Jesus Christ came in the flesh; That of the crucified body and shed blood of Christ which looked, smelled, behaved and would scientifically test as being real human flesh - and which Scripture emphasizes, and stands in contrast to a Docetist-type Christ whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was.
“And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:38-39) “Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” (John 20:27) “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” (1 John 4:3)
(That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 1:1; 5:6) , in contrast to a christ whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was. (For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist: 2 John 7)
What this "true body and blood of Christ" would not be then is inanimate objects, bread and wine - which look, smell, behave and would scientifically test as being simply bread and wine - and yet in Catholic theology these no longer even exist when the priest utters the "words of consecration,” - the invisible yet true body and blood of Christ having taken their place. "The very body" "true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ," whole and entire in His physical "reality,” "with His bodily organs and limb," His flesh being "corporeal, not spiritual" with the actual partaking being of Christ in person, hence literally,” yet not as "sensible, visible, tangible, or extended, although it is such in heaven," but under a "new mode of being," under the mere appearance of non-existent bread and wine, "in each particle and in each drop."
Until that is, the non-existent bread or wine manifest decay/corruption, at which point the Eucharistic Christ no longer locally exists under that mode either.
For this contrivance is actually what (Roman) Catholic Eucharistic theology teaches. [1]
In contrast to which is the metaphorical understanding which alone easily conflates with Scripture overall. And indeed, Jews were familiar with the abundant metaphorical use of language in the Hebrew Scriptures, including calling men “bread,” and water “blood,” and who were solemnly forbidden to consume blood. (Lev. 17:10,11)
And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Beth–lehem, which *is* by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth–lehem, that *was* by the gate, and took *it*, and brought *it* to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: *is not this* the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)
Or where God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread,”:
“Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9 (Numbers 14:9 KJV 1900 - Only rebel not ye… | Biblia))
Thus the very first Christians would have understood “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you,” (1 Corinthians 11:24) and “Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:27-28) as metaphorical.
And therefore what we see in the only description in much detail of the Lords' supper in the inspired record of how the NT understood the gospels, is that the understanding of the Lord's supper was that of remembering and thus showing/declaring His death by sharing a meal with others who were bought by His sinless shed blood, thus showing union with Christ and each other as being "one bread," analogous to how pagans have fellowship with the objects of their worship and each other in their dedicatory feasts, which was not by physically consuming their flesh.
And with no clergy distinctively ordained as "hiereus ," as a distinctive class of sacerdotal men (priests) and charged with or shown conducting it as a primarily unique function as a offering for sin and feeding the flock thereby. Instead, for NT pastors- for whom the distinctive word for priests or high priest (“hiereus” or “archiereus") are never distinctively used, being called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) referring to those in the same office, (Titus 1:5-7 cf. Acts 20:17,28) - preaching the word is the primary active function of pastors, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock thereby.
For is the word of God that is referred to as spiritual food, as "milk" (1Cor. 3:2; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12,14) and is said to nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up, (Acts 20:32) and thus the primary active function of pastors is to preach the word, (2Tim. 4:2) which is how they "feed the flock." (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2)
Footnotes