Replies

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.

metmom wrote:

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. Are you not aware that every last Protestant denomination CLAIMS to use "Scripture Alone" to come to these (different) conclusions? Your argument is with them, not with me... since you're flatly claiming that these tens of millions of "Bible-believing, sola-Scriptura-holding" Christians are all wrong, and that you're right. That's rather a bold claim, don't you think?

It feels rather odd to be defending their clazims, like this, but... here are a few samples of their claims to be following the "Bible alone":

Seventh Day Adventists: (who believe that worship on Sunday is the Mark of the Beast)
Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures.

Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (who believe that abortion is morally permissible)
Today, nearly five centuries later, Lutherans still celebrate the Reformation on October 31 and still hold to the basic principles of Luther’s theological teachings, such as Grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone. These comprise the very essence of Lutheranism.

Anglican Church(es), who believe that homosexual marriage is morally permissible
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. (from the Church of England "Thirty Nine Articles" of required faith)

Does that help, a bit? I'm afraid I'll have to let you dig up your own references to the other Protestant denominations (Google works well), since this is fairly time-consuming; but suffice it to say that you (and/or your particular faith-group) are not the only one to use "sola Scriptura"... and, more importantly, there are millions of "sola Scriptura" believers who disagree with you strongly on one or more critical issues of faith (e.g. they claim that one's salvation depends on them).

Hi, metmom,

Sorry for the delay; I'd been a bit swamped, and I'd also missed/forgotten these questions of yours!

You wrote:

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.

I've demonstrated (in the links above) that they certainly CLAIM (and believe themselves) to be following "Scriptura alone"; and if you accuse them of not "truly" following "Scripture alone" simply because they don't agree with you, then I'm not quite sure what to say to you... since they could say the very same thing about you! (How, for example, would you prove that you truly follow "sola Scriptura", and that you haven't set yourself up as an "authority outside of Scripture" while claiming to do the very opposite?) I don't see how you could.

Not every issue is salvific either.

That's certainly true... and that's why I chose critically important issues for my three examples (e.g. abortion [the murder of unborn children], homosexual activity [a grave sin], and whether or not you [and I] are damned for worshipping on Sunday and "taking the mark of the beast on our foreheads", as the SDA's claim). I don't think any reasonable person could deny that murder, the legal recognition/blessing of homosexual sex, and damnation for violating the Third Commandment are "non-salvific".

Only cults make them that and that's a good way of ID'ing a cult.

Well... let's be careful, here. You're essentially claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a cult... and they could say the very same thing about your local faith group, yes?

Any group that teaches something is needed besides faith in Christ, is a cult.

Now, you *know* that's not true! St. James teaches that we also need good works (James 2:24), St. Paul teaches that the greatest needed thing is selfless love (1 Corinthians 13:13), and Jesus Himself says that the first commandment is to "love the Lord Your God with all your mind, heart, soul and strength" (followed by loving one's neighbour after oneself) (Matthew 22:35-40). Jesus also warned that those who neglect to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc., will be relegated among the goats (i.e. the damned), since they didn't do those things unto Him (Matthew 25:31-46). Faith is utterly necessary... but NOWHERE does the Bible say that one needs faith ALONE. That was another error of Luther which you inherited from your own forefathers (through no fault of your own).

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.

You'd have to be more specific on that point... since I've studied Orthodox teachings quite a bit, and I know of only one issue which might fit that category (i.e. the teaching on artificial contraception); on that point, the Orthodox Churches do not agree among themselves... which is an almost-inevitable symptom of breaking away from the Chair of Peter (i.e. a breakdown in doctrinal unity always follows a breakdown in spiritual unity). But do remember: I say that "sola Scriptura" is a false, man-made, dangerous doctrine, but I do not say that it is the source of all evils... or that those who rightly reject "sola Scriptura" cannot go astray in other ways. That's simple common sense: the fact that a man may be brilliant in science (e.g. Stephen Hawking), for example, does not prevent him from being severely misled on other issues (e.g. Hawking's atheism). Just so, with the Orthodox Churches... though the proofs for the Catholic claims vs. the Orthodox Churches is a much longer story.

And both claim to be the *original* Catholic church with the other being the schismatics.

That is partially true (in a sense, both ARE the "original" Catholic Church, though there is indeed a schism).

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?

First of all, do be careful in describing my position as "condemning"; I'm pointing out the errors of "sola Scriptura", and I'm warning people away from that unbiblical, man-made, self-contradictory, destructive philosophy. It might be said that I'm "condemning" the errors which led so many people (including Luther, Calvin, etc.) astray... but don't go farther, and assume that I'm "condemning" any given *people* (or groups of people); that is not so, nor is it at all necessary.

Secondly: one key difference is something which I've repeated, almost until I'm blue in the face: we definitely use Scripture (we love and embrace it as the inerrant, Written Word of God)... but we do not use Scripture ALONE (but you do). Have I failed to make that point sufficiently clear? I'm not sure how I could be clearer, frankly.

Third: the Orthodox Churches go astray mainly because they have broken from Peter (i.e. the Pope), and they've embraced nationalistic Churches instead of the universal ("Catholic") nature of the Church of Christ. Do be clear on this: they are still members of the True Church (they have valid Sacraments, their priests are valid priests, etc.); they are simply in a painful state of being estranged. And again: they also reject the pernicious man-made error of "sola Scriptura". Again: the explanations of "Catholic vs. Orthodox" is a complex and long one (which would probably require a separate thread of its own)... but since neither the Orthodox nor Catholics "use Scripture" in the way that you do, in a way that it was never designed to be used (i.e. ALONE), this really doesn't apply to your point (or help your case) at all.

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.>br>
The Sacrament of Holy Orders (by which a priest [or deacon, though that's a separate issue] is ordained) leaves an indelible (i.e. cannot fade or be removed) mark on the soul, yes; once a priest, always a priest. Hypothetically, a priest who dies estranged from God (i.e. in a state of unrepented mortal sin) would be a priest even in hell... to his everlasting shame.

And these groups of nuns and priests are pro-abortion and pro-homosexual. And they're Catholic.

Yes... but they are wrong and/or disobedient and/or sinful Catholics (whether priests or not, nuns or not, religious brothers or not, deacons or not, etc.--that makes no difference whatsoever)... and (N.B.) there is a sure way to TELL whether they are astray or not. A priest who embraces the legalization of abortion is provably violating Catholic moral teaching (which has never changed in the sense of being revoked/contradicted by other Church teaching... and it never will); the same cannot be said for a non-Catholic minister who claims to follow "Scripture alone". Non-Catholic "sola Scriptura believers" have only their personal views/tastes and their local pastors to follow, with no hope of a "final court of appeals" for any such salvific issues. That's why there are thousands of such denominations/groups.