It is one thing to come to a conclusion which is "dangerous", it is quite another to think in self-conceited pride that my interpretation is more accurate than that of 2000 years of men far more holy, wise, and learned than I. Luther didn't even know the Greek very well, yet he invented a system of justification which the Early Fathers, who spoke the languge fluently, never saw in the scriptures nor learned from the lips of the Lord Himself. Makes ya wonder.
Do you yourself know Greek well enough to interpret the writings of the Greek Fathers in the original? If not, I suggest you lay off Luther, because you can hardly tell us what precisely they even believed. And, at any rate, you rely on Rome for it.
First of all, the duty of the office of the papacy is not defined in terms of coming up with new doctrine or inventing doctrine on one's own, unlike that of Protestantism which has had a penchant for that for the last 500 years.
Oh, please. It's a wonder you were ever a Protestant seeing how desperately you misunderstand and misrepresent Protestantism.
Any doctrinal disputes are first brought to council (remember the Jerusalem Council in Acts?) and then, after a conclusion is reached, given to the Holy Father for final review and approval. The pope is not a dictator who can make up doctrine as he goes along.
I don't see Peter acting as the final reviewer of the Jerusalem Council's declarations, do you? In fact, if any one person acted as final arbiter, it rather seems that it was James. But guess what? Within Protestant denominational bodies, doctrinal disputes are frequently brought before a general assembly of the church. That's how the Presbyterians do it, is it not?
Secondly, there has been no real need to define Eschatology in the same manner that there was the nature of Christ in the Nicene Council. This is perhaps because any understanding of Eschatology ultimately has little bearing on one's salvation, whereas the understanding of Who Jesus is has a major and profound impact on one's salvation.
The question of whether there existed a
necessity is not what I'm after. What I'm after is why the Pope does not use the power of his infallible office to finally teach the church the definite eschatological truths revealed in Scripture, thus to further edify and unify the church.
Note, however, that this is your own position, not mine, although I must say that I think your interpretations are off in several areas.
Well, I'm a convinced Preterist. I hear that a lot.
I wasn't after your preterism.
