Replies

metmom wrote:

Um, Scripture promises the Holy Spirit to guide us.

Right: but there's far more to it than that... unless you think that the Holy Spirit is responsible for guiding thousands of Protestant denominations into contradictory beliefs:

worship on Saturday [Seventh Day Adventist] or Sunday [mainline Christianity]

baptism is regenerative [Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, many Lutherans, etc.] or merely symbolic [many evangelical non-denominational groups]

infant baptism is desirable [Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.] or a grave mistake [Baptist, non-denominational, most evangelical, etc.]

the Eucharist is God [Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, some Lutherans] or a mere symbol [evangelicals, etc.]

abortion is morally allowable [Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, etc.] or an inhuman crime [most others, though the non-Catholic, number is dwindling]

contraception is morally allowable [virtually all non-Catholic and non-Amish/Mennonite/etc.] or morally illicit [Catholics, some "plain people"]

"gay marriage" is morally acceptable [many non-Catholic groups, Anglican, etc.] or a profound moral/physical/psychological disorder [Catholic, many evangelicals]

sins are mortal and venial [Catholic, Orthodox] or else "all the same" [most Protestant]

Mary is the Mother of God [Catholic, Orthodox] or not [most Protestants, especially evangelicals]

illness is real [non-Christian Scientists] or a mere illusion [Christian Scientists]

Do you get the idea? Which of these sincere, Bible-believing (and you'd find it difficult to contradict their claim to be Bible-believing) non-Catholics do you think were led by the Spirit "into all truth" (John 16:13)? And surely you don't think that the Holy Spirit led the others into error, do you?

This is one of the main additional problems with "sola Scriptura"--it spawns tens of thousands of "mini-Popes" who all believe that they're led "by the Holy Spirit" into all different directions! That simply can't be true... but you're in no position to say which is true, and which is false, while clinging to sola Scriptura.

Luther who? I don't *cling* to Luther. He has no effect or affect on my spiritual life.

Yes, he does... though you might not be conscious of it. If you subscribe to "sola Scriptura" (which he popularised), then you're a spiritual child of Luther. If you believe that the Protestant 66-book Bible is the complete Bible, you're a spiritual child of Luther. If you believe (in flat contradiction to James 2:24) that we are saved by "faith alone", you are a spiritual child of Luther. That's only scratching the surface.

Everything we need for coming to Christ for salvation and growing and maturing in Him is found in Scripture. If it's outside Scripture and lines up with Scripture, then it's redundant. If it's outside Scripture and contradicts Scripture, it's a lie. Plain and simple.

All right: you've now stated (yet again) your very strong, fervent, sincere raw opinion. Now, in order for anyone else to take that opinion seriously (i.e. as fact, and not your mere personal tastes), you need to PROVE your point... not simply restate it, again and again, with greater and greater amounts of emotional energy and rhetorical colour. Are you willing to try to do that, or are we done here?

>>though you might not be conscious of it. If you subscribe to "sola Scriptura" (which he popularised), then you're a spiritual child of Luther.<<

I hope you don’t think your actually convincing anyone. Let’s see what Paul had to say about checking on what church leaders taught.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Checking with scripture to judge the teaching of man goes back a whole lot farther than Luther.

>> If you believe that the Protestant 66-book Bible is the complete Bible, you're a spiritual child of Luther.<<

True Holy Spirit inspired scripture does not contain errors nor does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself. Let’s look at some examples where there are direct contradiction between the apocrypha and scripture.

“Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins...Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin” (Sirach 3:3, 30).

Leviticus 17:11 states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

Tobit 12:9 states that “alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.”

“the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7)

How many more must we list to show that Catholics use books that are contrary to the Holy Spirit inspired scripture? There are many more.

In the New Testament there are 260 quotes and 370 allusions to the Old Testament. There is not even one quote from the Apocrypha.

If you believe the apocrypha is to be used as scripture you are a spiritual child of Lucifer.

Right: but there's far more to it than that... unless you think that the Holy Spirit is responsible for guiding thousands of Protestant denominations into contradictory beliefs:

First off, those doctrinal differences you listed are a result of NOT following Scripture, of setting themselves up as authority outside of Scripture. Unless you can demonstrate that they USE Scripture to back up their beliefs, then you can't legitimately attribute them to sola scriptura.

Not every issue is salvific either. Only cults make them that and that's a good way of ID'ing a cult. Any group that teaches something is needed besides faith in Christ, is a cult.

Additionally, there are some significant differences between the Roman rite and the EO, things that Rome says ARE salvific and the EO say are not. And both claim to be the *original* Catholic church with the other being the schismatics. Both the Roman church and the EO claim to use Scripture to back themselves up, so how are they any different from what you're condemning in non-Catholics?

And then there are plenty of offshoots of fringe groups of nuns and priests who are ordained or whatever they call nuns, and Catholics constantly remind us that those vows are irrevocable. *Once a priest, always a priest* is the byword. And these groups of nuns and priests are pro-abortion and pro-homosexual. And they're Catholic.

Romans 14:1-12 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.