You apparenty do not understand what I said.
I said there is no “new” revelation, and by that I mean there is no extra-biblical revelation at this time. Things like the Book of Mormon and the extra-biblical teachings of the Catholic church are what I’m talking about. These kinds of things are man-made teachings that people claim to be “new” revelations from God, outside of the Bible, but are nothing more than lies from hell.
That’s what I’m talking about.
You know nothing about me and my Christianity. You can take a hike with your assertions on my Christian credibility.
I see you and your fellow buffoons rail on about the lack of legitimacy of Catholic teaching predicated upon nothing other than your own individual infallible interpretations of Scripture. It brings to mind an argument articulated by the late Cardinal Gibbons.
First Catholics are told that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on any man, especially a Catholic one. But if God could make mere men the instrument by which he revealed the infallible Word, why is it impossible to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter?
Next we are told by Protestants that an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. That then begs the question of whether your interpretation of the Bible is equally infallible. If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and by extension for every other reader of Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny the Pope and the Magisterium. On what basis or what knowledge do you deny to them what you claim for yourself? And how do you rationalize the many differences in interpretation among and between the various Protestant sects and denominations?
On the otherhand, if you are not infallibly certain that you have properly interpreted and understand the whole Bible then what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?