I'm Amazed at How Some Roman Catholic Apologists Tell Me I'm "Ignorant" About Scripture

It's very easy to claim anyone is ignorant about Scripture. I guess it's a simple psychological technique used by the Vatican to guilt induce anyone into joining them. Usaved people naturally don't bother to read the Bible properly and they are naturally addicted to man's approval rather than God. Such conditions make them fertile grounds to be blind followers of authority rather than discerning followers of authority. The same goes for how the Roman Catholic institution had banned the laity from reading the Bible for centuries. Some Roman Catholic apologists may give a reason that not anyone can read the Bible for themselves. 

What really amazes me (or frustrates me to many levels) is that their interpretation is really faulty because they ignore even the obvious. You can tell the diagram above is going against grammatical context. Even when it's obvious that this points somewhere else, the maker of the diagram still insists that Peter is the Rock. It's amazing how foolish the person is to twist around the Scriptures. Whoever made it may already be insisting that born again Christians are indeed "ignorant" of God's Word but look who's talking. 

It's no surprise that Roman Catholics don't really bother to study the Bible for themselves. From Homiletic and Pastoral Review (a Roman Catholic site), here's something interesting that I want to share from the article "What Evangelicals Can Learn From Catholics":

The ideal Evangelical sermon not only teaches the meaning of the biblical text, it also applies that text to the real-world concerns that the members of the congregation face. Many pastors use expository preaching, which means the pastor will have a series of sermons on a single book of the Bible. Each week, the sermon explains another section of the book, verse by verse, so that by the end of the sermon series, the congregation has a good understanding of the main message of the book. Sadly, expository preaching is probably the biggest reason that Catholics leave the Church in favor of an Evangelical congregation. Ex-Catholics often say that they understood the Bible for the first time after regular attendance at an Evangelical church.

I'm not surprised to find out that Rome is against expository preaching. Although I'm no longer a Roman Catholic but a born again Christian, I can still remember how often homilies in the Roman Catholic Mass hardly focus on getting the Greek and the Hebrew or the meaning of the text. It's really messages that are taken out of context in several levels. It's no wonder why Pope Leo XIII said that if the Bible were given in vernacular it will do more harm than good. Simply translating the Bible for the common people was an offense that Rome considered to be punishable by death. So much for saying that the Roman Catholic institution compiled the Bible. They figure out that if people fully understood the Scripture better they would be leaving.

I guess that's what the Reformers understood when the Reformation was launched. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin were expositors of the Scripture. Many of the Reformed or Calvinist view were expositors. I usually use the Geneva Study Bible, Matthew Henry's Commentary and John Gill's commentary as partial aides to help me understand the Scripture. The great Charles H. Spurgeon was probably the biggest expositor of Scriptures. I guess that's why many expository preachers today like John F. MacArthur get falsely attacked (and I really bought the lie he added works to salvation until I started reading at least one book by him) because they're diligent expositors. 

As said, part of continuing the Reformation is practicing and putting high value towards expository preaching. Preaching expositorily may not reduce mistakes down to zero percent error but they'd definitely grant much less error than non-expository preaching. I shouldn't care about what the world thinks because this world is just going to pass away.