M
mmmcounts
Guest
I’ll start by saying I’m somewhat familiar with the “Warnings Against Private Interpretations.” Let’s deal with that upfront, shall we? Here’s that passage.
Remember that RCC doctrine is man’s testimony and 1 John is God’s testimony. Now refer to verse 9 (the one in magenta). “We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.” I would strongly advise against denying God’s testimony so that you can continue affirming man’s testimony. That doesn’t seem very sound. Instead, follow the example of the Bereans. When Paul was with them, they examined the Scriptures every day to see if what he said was true. They were praised for this. If the Bereans were praised for doing this when an apostle was physically present and talking right to them, you should definitely submit “apostolic tradition” to the authority of Scripture in the same way. Examine the Scriptures to see if what it says is true.
It should go without saying that I do not welcome protests about “private interpretation.” The contents of 1 John are not the result of private interpretation. Its origin is in a man named John who spoke from God, and you will do well to pay attention to it. Deal with what is found there. That’s twice now that I’ve addressed the issue, so if you truly think I want to make it three, whatever is wrong with you is no small thing.
First, it tells you to pay attention to the word of the prophets. So pay attention to it! Second, I am not a prophet. I have never made any prophecies of Scripture. And I never will. So when you refer to a verse that says “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation,” it can’t be talking about me. I’m not a prophet. It can’t be talking about anything that came from me. I make no prophecy of Scripture or any other kind. However, what follows does include some prophecy that John contributed to Scripture as he was carried along by the Holy Spirit, and you will do well to pay attention to it.19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
The RCC says we can’t know that we have eternal life at any point before we die, nor will we actually have eternal life until some time after we die. Yet John writes these things about God’s testimony that we have eternal life, and he tells us he writes these things so that you may know that you have eternal life.13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Remember that RCC doctrine is man’s testimony and 1 John is God’s testimony. Now refer to verse 9 (the one in magenta). “We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.” I would strongly advise against denying God’s testimony so that you can continue affirming man’s testimony. That doesn’t seem very sound. Instead, follow the example of the Bereans. When Paul was with them, they examined the Scriptures every day to see if what he said was true. They were praised for this. If the Bereans were praised for doing this when an apostle was physically present and talking right to them, you should definitely submit “apostolic tradition” to the authority of Scripture in the same way. Examine the Scriptures to see if what it says is true.
It should go without saying that I do not welcome protests about “private interpretation.” The contents of 1 John are not the result of private interpretation. Its origin is in a man named John who spoke from God, and you will do well to pay attention to it. Deal with what is found there. That’s twice now that I’ve addressed the issue, so if you truly think I want to make it three, whatever is wrong with you is no small thing.
If you plan on posting on this thread, plan on answering that question. If you can’t figure out what to do with the passage, don’t post. Go away. If you do post, try to stay on topic.RCC doctrine says we can’t have assurance of salvation but the Bible says something quite different in 1 John. What do you do with this?