Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[Frankk]

You note an impotant point, like others here have done already. Let me say a few things about the specific examples youvused though

I think your response is largely valid, however, it does not address the reality that there are clearly many ‘legitimate’ (if I can use that term) Protestant denominations who all differ from each other on one, or more, points of doctrine.

The Holy Spirit, not a religious movements, is my appointed Helper. He is the one whom the Father sent. I shall not substitute Him in favour of another human being. He is my helper to help me interpret Scripture. No doubt I will not hear Him speak (often) and no doubt I will not (want to) listen at other times. But that does not make 1 John 2:27 invalid. In fact, it is my encouragement to listen more carefully: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God”, which, naturally includes the reading of Scripture as well.

I feel sure many of the 30,000 (or so) different denominations would ascribe to these sentiments; again, however, we are left to ask why they so frequently come up with different interpretations if they are all guided by the Holy Spirit?

Leaving aside JWs, Mormons, etc… we can look back to the origins of Sola Scriptura when in a very short space of time, Calvin, Zwingli, etc… were at odds with Luther’s interpretation of Sacred Scripture (and with each other!).

I can see the attraction of the appeal to guidance from the Holy Spirit but the protestant world, in general, is proof positive that it doesn’t ‘work’.

I think that we should reflect, too, that if SS was God’s intention he was rather remiss to abandon his people for 1,000 years until Luther happened upon the scene. Even beyond this, when the doctrine came out only about 10% of the people could read and, of these, only about 2% could read fluently. This, of course, means that most people had to rely on others to interpret scripture for them.

In fact only in the late 19th Century did literacy rates begin to rise significantly. In 1841 33% of men and 44% of women in England had to sign their marriage certificates with a mark ‘X’.

The invention of the printing press wasn’t the great liberating event some claim it to be. Literacy was still confined to the privileged few. So how was the Holy Spirit guiding the millions of illiterate for over 1,800 years of Christian history? God left behind a Church with his authority to interpret the Bible.

The Church began at Pentecost. It still survives today. Sola Scriptura didn’t happen on the scene until the mid 1500s - and it remained completely out of reach for most people until over 300 years later. Even now its effects are division and disagreement, not the Unity Christ calls his Church to.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
Just wanted to log for a second and apologize for the previous answer I gave.
My wording is as Paul said rather crude at times.
I have a lot going on today and can’t stay online.
May God bless.

No need to apologize Frank. Trust me I understand. Life really gets in the way at time.

Kind of off topic but I like you have had one HECK of a month. My Mom has been down the last 2 months, I am taking care of her with Dr. appts. etc. And now my husband had a accident with the log splitter, so now its Dr appts. all over again.

I like you try to work 40 hours a week and then take care of the world it seems. SO no need to apologize. I understand. Sometimes we have to rely quick and it may not seem as kind at times. God Bless.

 

[Good_Fella]

I like that verse. But, it is a commandment of Jesus to believe and to love, not a proof of the need to follow the Law of Moses even if it is only to moral rectitude. It It says what we should do: 1) believe, and 2) love one another. Believe is what brings salvation, love is what proves it.

Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.
James 2, 19

For James faith is the root of justification. But good works done in grace by faith working through love (Gal:5:5-6) perfect and complete justification.

*And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.
James 2, 23

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up his son Isaac upon the altar?
James 2, 21*

One can disobey our Lord by resisting God’s actual grace without which we can never please God and be made acceptable to Him. Jesus assures us:* “Without me you can do nothing.”* Mary acknowledged this truth when she declared in her canticle of praise:* “My soul proclaims the glory of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my saviour. For he has looked with favour on the lowliness of his handmaid.”* The actual grace of charity influences us to do good works provided we allow it to permeate and affect our souls with confidence in God’s purpose: to do what is right. Mary replied to the Divine proposal: “Let it be done to me according to your word.” As human beings created in the image of God, we have the free will to resist the Spirit and spurn divine grace.

And everyone that hath this hope in him, sanctifieth himself as he is holy.
1 John 3, 3

By actively sanctifying ourselves, John means we open our entire being to the outpouring of God’s sanctifying grace which increases in our lives as we bear good fruit. The grace of charity sanctifies the soul upon its reception in faith and increases in measure in proportion with its application in the life of faith. Sanctification precedes justification, so as sanctification increases in the soul, the individual increases in justification before God by his commitment to the faith. Thus acts of charity are necessary for the completion and perfection of our justification. To consciously refuse to act in love towards our neighbour is a sin and a fall from grace (Jas 4:17) without which we cannot be justified. So charity - the greatest of the three theological virtues among faith and hope, according to Paul - is more than a sign of possessing a saving faith; it is necessary for our salvation and must be put into action if we hope to be saved. David had faith in God while he committed murder and adultery, and he believed that God would forgive him of his mortal sins, but until he repented, he had lost his justification, for he fell from God’s grace. His act of repentance, prompted by the Holy Spirit, was a righteous act effected by the grace of charity which reconciled him with God and merited for him an increase in justification. For he hadn’t resisted the Spirit and succumbed to despair as Judas had. Likewise, Mary had already found favour with God before the angel appeared to her and gave her the good news. But her cousin Elizabeth didn’t praise her for her faith until after she consented to be the mother of our Lord. She, too, increased in holiness and merited for herself the second plenitude of grace because of her act of charity in faith.

Little children, let no man deceive you. He that doth justice is just, even as he is just.
1 John 3, 7

PAX
:heaven:

 

[CopticChristian]

You note an impotant point, like others here have done already. Let me say a few things about the specific examples youvused though: 1) main stream Protestants probably don’t consider 7th Day Adventists, JW’s, Mormons and the like as legitimate Christian movements or churches (not my view neccessarily), and 2) thinking that a critique of the RCC is done in defense of Protestants is a mistake. Its not about Protestants vs. Catholics. Never has been (for me at least), though the problems I see in the Catholic approach are probably greater than that of Protestants.

Further to the above, Mormons are seen as an illigitimate break away momement by most Protestants, who are seen as an illigitimate break away movement by many Catholics, who are seen as an illigitimate break away movement by some in the Orthodox church, who are seen as an illigitimate break away movement by virtually all Jews, who are seen as an obstinate people by God (I am over-simplifying to make a point). Who is right? God is right. These are all illigitimate break away movements because each has something in their history that proves that they weren’t listining to Him, whether it be killing Jews or killing Muslims in Crusades or stealing money or whatever. So, whivh church is God’s representative on earth then? That depends on your definition of church. If your def. is that it is a system of officials and lay that work their way up the hierarchy, that owns property and exerts political influence, then you will want to pick any one of the above movements and convince yourself that it was the right decision. You’ll find plenty of reason based on the “good” things they have done. And you’ll get plenty of affirmation from officials in that movement. But, if your def. is that church is simply a grouping of true believers, following the teachings and the message of Christ without having additional protocols and rules and symbols and rituals and practices and layers of officials and clothing and jewelery and gestures and properties, then you will believe that neither of the above movements represent the church of Christ. You will also know that Christ’s followers are known by their heart only, not by having a membership card or partner certificate or an academic qualification.

I belong to the latter group. For me there are true believers in the RCC, Orthodox church, Menonites, Charismatics, … the list goes on. For me the church constitute not those who piously follow the practices, traditions, rituals and promptiongs of their respective movements but those who are personally led by the Spirit of God and those who are obedient to the teaching of Jesus only.

I base that belief on, amongst others, these two passages, which say absolutely nothing about getting the nod from the local Pastor or Priest or Minister: (Romans 8:13-17) - For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together."

And;
(1 John 2:3-6) - Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked."

Hope that helps to explain my view to several questions in that regard.

The Holy Spirit, not a religious movements, is my appointed Helper. He is the one whom the Father sent. I shall not substitute Him in favour of another human being. He is my helper to help me interpret Scripture. No doubt I will not hear Him speak (often) and no doubt I will not (want to) listen at other times. But that does not make 1 John 2:27 invalid. In fact, it is my encouragement to listen more carefully: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God”, which, naturally includes the reading of Scripture as well.

This is quite generous of you to include your notion of who is a believer those that you mention. Your belief is fallible as are the opinions of all who follow Protestant thought. You forgot to read…John and Paul…

You are judging by human standards, but I am not judging anyone.

I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself.

The OHCAC says all who are baptized into Christ are Christians…fact consistent with Scripture, Romans 6. What you do after that is not for me to say…

I muse at Protestant like you who judge, based on what standard I do not know, that you believe magnanimously that there are believers that include you in other belief systems.

This is the typical Western thinking. You think wrongly that Protestant thought is the beginning of Christian thought and you incorporate and define others by your thinking. It reminds me of the arrogant thinking of football…Football in the world is played with a round ball and in the United States with a fusiform ball and yet the fusiform players believe they set the standard for football…

The other notion is Americans arrogantly thinking that they are the Americans in the USA and in reality South American, Central Americans see themselves as Americans too…The largest city in North America is Mexico…not New York…

 

[CopticChristian]

Its hard to believe that God will use a humble carpenter’s son to be the Redeemer of the world, but when you judge the fruit of his labour it is clear for anyone to see that He is Truth. As for church officials and an irrevocable authority to represent God’s word on earth, considering the fruit of their labour, it is a different story. After all, we judge a tree by its fruit. The fruit the world has seen in the church (‘officialdom’ over the ages) do not always speak of godliness. To suggest that the men who bear the fruit mentioned in the verse hereafter represent God is more than a bit of a stretch! - "But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them." Next you will likely ask me to give examples of fornicators and the like, … I will not do that here but I will ask you to speak to sexual abuse victom’s support groups and ask around how many were there as a result of ‘representatives of God’. A previous answer suggested that these ,men were found guilty and now sit in prison. No, not all. Nevertheless, there is your answer - *“no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” *Yet, some of these men who sit in positions high up in the church help ‘interpret Scripture’ on behalf of the Holy Spirit. I think not. Were these given an irrevocable authority in God’s name? I mean no offense but Scripture tells me no.

For those who, following the above reference to “Scripture” now want to see historical or academic reference to authors, dates and the like of those who wrote about Jesus and His message - the Gospel or the Word - … you are missing the point. No disrespect. If you ***believe ***the Holy Spirit inspired the **writing **of true accounts of the message of Jesus Christ and His Kingdom (not false ones as was the case with many stories and writings that went around at the time), and if you ***believe *** the Holy Spirit also inspired the **binding **of these true accounts, prophesies, letters, etc. into the Bible, then the person’s name or the date or the qualification or the marital status or colour of hair or favourite Apostle or meal they had for breakfast is completely irrelevant because the source of the initiative was the Holy Spirit. It is something you have to believe.

Don’t believe it? That’s your choice. I’m all fine with that. Have fun dissecting history while missing the Story within it.

I could not agree more. I have a heck of a time wondering how Protestants overlook Henry VIII divorcing his wife, Zwingli, an admitted fornicator prior to the so called reformation and Calvin a Murderer can be considered to have imparted any spiritual guidance that people like you follow.

 

[Frankk]

And so the merry-go-round goes round and round and round and round and round…

I’ve asked on (at least) three separate occasions how those who subscribe to Sola Scriptura can explain that others who subscribe to the same doctrine come to different interpretations of scripture - proclaiming, of course, they are all inspired by the Holy Spirit?

The only conclusion to be drawn is that they proffer no answer because THEY HAVE NO ANSWER.

This particular merry-go-round not only isn’t going anywhere it’s not even mildly diverting anymore.

 

[Nicea325]

gerhardc:

To clarify, as per your own admission, the Bible was not put together by anything else (including Sacred tradition) but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That is why I trust the Bible and not Sacred tradition.

Not entirely accurate. The above statement boils down to a profound misunderstanding by many non-Catholics. The CC has never denied inspiration of the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit for canonization. What you fail to comprehend is not a question of WHO guided the church,but HOW did God do it? God uses humans as instruments for many of his divine purposes. In the case of the Bible he used Catholic bishops to give us a canonized Bible.

Therefore you do accept Sacred Tradition because it is that Apostolic Tradition which was finally canonized into a collection of books. The canonized Christian Bible did not supersede Apostolic Tradition,but yet vice versa.

 

[gerhardc]

And so the merry-go-round goes round and round and round and round and round…

I’ve asked on (at least) three separate occasions how those who subscribe to Sola Scriptura can explain that others who subscribe to the same doctrine come to different interpretations of scripture - proclaiming, of course, they are all inspired by the Holy Spirit?

The only conclusion to be drawn is that they proffer no answer because THEY HAVE NO ANSWER.

This particular merry-go-round not only isn’t going anywhere it’s not even mildly diverting anymore.

No disrespect here Frank but you and others ask the same questions over and over and over and either don’t read the responses or … nevermind.

The answer to your question - simplified: while the Spirit is speaking to them, church leaders don’t hear Him because of their own preferences, hang-ups, culture, upbringing, influences by church doctrine, etc. These get in the way. Poor listening does not make 1 John 2:27 invalid. We learn to listen as we grow. We learn to be obedient as we listen. Refer Rom 8, “he who is led by the Spirit of God is a son of God” and 1 John 2:3, “We know Him if we follow His commandments”. As for an authority given to one church, we define church in different ways. Church is a body of believers. It is that simple. As for the question about whether or not you were baptised into one church, … do you not know that the effectiveness of baptism vests in the condition of your heart, not in the place you were baptised or the person who took you through it? Do you not know that it is about your heart and nothing else? If people choose to find interpretation with men, then so be it. I try to be led by the Spirit and the word, my “rod and my staff” (Psalm 23). Hope that helps.

 

[Ginger2]

I’ve asked on (at least) three separate occasions how those who subscribe to Sola Scriptura …

And you have been told "…because it is an off-topic question.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that they proffer no answer because THEY HAVE NO ANSWER.

And this is a typical, yet, erroneous conclusion. With all due respect, I do not care to get chastized again for taking a thread off-topic because I felt badgered into responding to an off-topic questions. And that is how your posts are beginning to sound, to me at least.

So, may I humbly suggest you search one of the 5,000 threads that address this issue to find your answer? Or perhaps start a nwe thread on this topic and invite those you would like to converse with.

Thanks,

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Frankk,

Here is a link to a thread started a couple years ago. There are hundreds more on this same topic if you want to do a search. I hope this helps.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5734269&highlight=sola+scriptura#post5734269

 

[gerhardc]

gerhardc:

Not entirely accurate. The above statement boils down to a profound misunderstanding by many non-Catholics. The CC has never denied inspiration of the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit for canonization. What you fail to comprehend is not a question of WHO guided the church,but HOW did God do it? God uses humans as instruments for many of his divine purposes. In the case of the Bible he used Catholic bishops to give us a canonized Bible.

Therefore you do accept Sacred Tradition because it is that Apostolic Tradition which was finally canonized into a collection of books. The canonized Christian Bible did not supersede Apostolic Tradition,but yet vice versa.

Thank you. You are suggesting that a once-off fulfilling of a Holy Spirit initiative like canonizing the Bible and representing the Holy Spirit on earth for all other things following is the same thing. It is not. God can use a donkey to admonish to a man. That does not suggest that all donkey from that point onwards have the office of admonishing men. Thats a crazy thought. How can you believe it?

 

[Nicea325]

Thank you. You are suggesting that a once-off fulfilling of a Holy Spirit initiative like canonizing the Bible and representing the Holy Spirit on earth for all other things following is the same thing. It is not. God can use a donkey to admonish to a man. That does not suggest that all donkey from that point onwards have the office of admonishing men. Thats a crazy thought. How can you believe it?

What on earth are you talking about? Did God use humans (prophets) and angels to teach and warn people? Did God use humans to write the Bible? Did God use human bishops to canonize the Bible?

Your statement makes no sense at all.

 

[gerhardc]

Gerhard, I’m hoping you’re not deliberately lying here just to prove a false point. The Catholic Church is a break-away from no-one! Sorry to disappoint you there.

History is present and open for the investigations of any legitimate seeker- The beliefs, practices and lives of the first Christians can be known to any one who wants to know them, and they can decide for themselves the truth. The Catholic Church is exactly 2,000. She was founded by Christ, on a foundation Rock called Cephas the Rock- St Peter himself, and his bishopric was situated in Rome where he was martyred and burried in vatican Hill, under St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, and handed on his charism to his successor, St. Linus.

So what if “some” Orthodox blame the schism on Rome and accuse it of breaking communion? The Sedevancatist or Schismatic Catholic groups also consider themselves the true Church and believe that the whole of the rest of the Church broke from them in 1962. As do the Orientals who broke away back in about the 5th/6th century.

There’s a clear unbroken line of succession from St. Peter who received the keys of the kingdom from Christ (The authority of the Christ the King as his vicar) and got the first power to bind and loose, and was set as the foundation of the Jesus’ Church, and given the triple duty to feed the sheep and lambs of Christ and to strengthen them- That authority passed to St. Linus, then to St. Clement, all the way through 263 others down to Benedict XVI, all clearly traceable in History. This false notion you introduce here (Catholics broke away) is ridiculous! If the Prime minister rules for the king, and parts of the kingdom break away from the rule of the Prime Minister- Who can say that the Prime Minister “broke away” from the parts that removed themselves from his rule?- Absurd. You’re coming up with false reasons to justify holding on to a man-made lie from the 16th Century.

And the Protestants did not “break away”. They began entirely new groups that had never existed- That’s why they have no Apostolic succession. They cannot trace their way back to the Apostles because they were founded by the Protestant fathers. Only Anglicanism can be said to have “broken” away- It was a legitimate Church which removed itself from the Authority of the Pope, and later lost its charisms. The Apostolic Churches (Catholic, E. Orthodox, O.Orthodox) can all trace their way back to the apostles who founded them. They can be said to break away simply because they removed themselves from the Authority of St. Peter and his successors- But Protestantism was invented by Martin Luther and his friends -There was no breaking away.

Schisms are all about one thing- Rejection of Authority- It’s a sin of pride. Saying you don’t call yourself Protestant is moot- You subscribe to “sola-scriptura”- The very definition of protestantism- It doesn’t matter what name you give yourself- your faith is protestantism.

Peace!

Mary, … you are perhaps carried away a little. What I said was this: “…are seen as an illigitimate break away momement by most …”. and, “So, whivh church is God’s representative on earth then? That depends on your definition of church. If your def. is that it is a system of officials and lay that work their way up the hierarchy, that owns property and exerts political influence, then you will want to pick any one of the above movements and convince yourself that it was the right decision. You’ll find plenty of reason based on the “good” things they have done. And you’ll get plenty of affirmation from officials in that movement.” and “You will also know that Christ’s followers are known by their heart only, not by having a membership card or partner certificate or an academic qualification.”

As I have said before, this is not about Catholic vs. Anti-Catholic, … please!

 

[gerhardc]

I think your response is largely valid, however, it does not address the reality that there are clearly many ‘legitimate’ (if I can use that term) Protestant denominations who all differ from each other on one, or more, points of doctrine.

I feel sure many of the 30,000 (or so) different denominations would ascribe to these sentiments; again, however, we are left to ask why they so frequently come up with different interpretations if they are all guided by the Holy Spirit?

Leaving aside JWs, Mormons, etc… we can look back to the origins of Sola Scriptura when in a very short space of time, Calvin, Zwingli, etc… were at odds with Luther’s interpretation of Sacred Scripture (and with each other!).

I can see the attraction of the appeal to guidance from the Holy Spirit but the protestant world, in general, is proof positive that it doesn’t ‘work’.

I think that we should reflect, too, that if SS was God’s intention he was rather remiss to abandon his people for 1,000 years until Luther happened upon the scene. Even beyond this, when the doctrine came out only about 10% of the people could read and, of these, only about 2% could read fluently. This, of course, means that most people had to rely on others to interpret scripture for them.

In fact only in the late 19th Century did literacy rates begin to rise significantly. In 1841 33% of men and 44% of women in England had to sign their marriage certificates with a mark ‘X’.

The invention of the printing press wasn’t the great liberating event some claim it to be. Literacy was still confined to the privileged few. So how was the Holy Spirit guiding the millions of illiterate for over 1,800 years of Christian history? God left behind a Church with his authority to interpret the Bible.

The Church began at Pentecost. It still survives today. Sola Scriptura didn’t happen on the scene until the mid 1500s - and it remained completely out of reach for most people until over 300 years later. Even now its effects are division and disagreement, not the Unity Christ calls his Church to.

Frank, do you want to know why I believe the Bible is the word of God and why nothing else deserves that title? It has absolutely nothing to do with what any so-called protestant leader has said, or written or postulated about, including Luther, Calvin, Zingli, etc., etc. They have nothing to do with it at all. I do not subscribe to the wisdom of men, remember? I believe the Bible is the word of God and the only book that deserves that honour: having been raised in a ‘traditional church’, being “baptised”, going through the motions and rituals that were prescribed, believing in Jesus but not following Him and living an ungodly life in the midst of all of that, my life was changed without me even trying when I received a new spirit. This happened after I was convinced from the Bible to repent, believed in and confess Jesus while giving my will over to the will of Jesus. Later I was baptised. All of this had nothing to do with me attending that particular congregation for I was a visitor who was there upon invitation being indifferent about God and Jesus and all the rest. But it had everything to do with the word of God being preached and me receiving it on that day. For the first time I heard (understood) what the Bible really said. I understood the Gospel and I received it. Thank God for that. As we speak I am being sanctified (refer John 17:17 - “Sanctify them with Your word. Your word is truth”) but I am already justified. Moreover, I have received a new spirit. My tastes and preferences for “fun” has changed without me initiating anything.

The problem I have with anyone - Catholics and non-Catholics alike - is if they persist in seeking a new spirit by virtue of a baptism or a membership to a church or a preaching of Jesus all day long, or any other man-made initiative. Or, if they deny that a new spirit is indeed necessary to enter the Kingdom of God (refer John 3:3-5). Some wish to ridicule or make light of an experience like mine. That’s okay, I’m all good with that. I did the same thing. Yet, I will caution them to not mock the (working of) the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers.

 

[PRmerger]

Frank,** do you want to know why I believe the Bible is the word of God a**nd why nothing else deserves that title? It has absolutely nothing to do with what any so-called protestant leader has said, or written or postulated about, including Luther, Calvin, Zingli, etc., etc. They have nothing to do with it at all. I do not subscribe to the wisdom of men, remember? I believe the Bible is the word of God and the only book that deserves that honour: having been raised in a ‘traditional church’, being “baptised”, going through the motions and rituals that were prescribed, believing in Jesus but not following Him and living an ungodly life in the midst of all of that, my life was changed without me even trying when I received a new spirit. This happened after I was convinced from the Bible to repent, believed in and confess Jesus while giving my will over to the will of Jesus. Later I was baptised. All of this had nothing to do with me attending that particular congregation for I was a visitor who was there upon invitation being indifferent about God and Jesus and all the rest. But it had everything to do with the word of God being preached and me receiving it on that day. For the first time I heard (understood) what the Bible really said. I understood the Gospel and I received it. Thank God for that. As we speak I am being sanctified (refer John 17:17 - “Sanctify them with Your word. Your word is truth”) but I am already justified. Moreover, I have received a new spirit. My tastes and preferences for “fun” has changed without me initiating anything.

The problem I have with anyone - Catholics and non-Catholics alike - is if they persist in seeking a new spirit by virtue of a baptism or a membership to a church or a preaching of Jesus all day long, or any other man-made initiative. Or, if they deny that a new spirit is indeed necessary to enter the Kingdom of God (refer John 3:3-5). Some wish to ridicule or make light of an experience like mine. That’s okay, I’m all good with that. I did the same thing. Yet, I will caution them to not mock the (working of) the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers.

With all due respect, gerhard, I’ve read through this post carefully twice, and I still cannot find the answer to your question: “do you know why I believe the Bible is the word of God and why nothing else deserves that title?”

You’ve stated some pertinent negatives:

It has absolutely nothing to do with what any so-called protestant leader has said, or written or postulated about, including Luther, Calvin, Zingli, etc., etc. They have nothing to do with it at all.
I do not subscribe to the wisdom of men, remember?

That’s fine. Those are NOT reasons why you believe the Bible to be the word of God.

And then you state:

I believe the Bible is the word of God and the only book that deserves that honour: having been raised in a ‘traditional church’, being “baptised”, going through the motions and rituals that were prescribed, believing in Jesus but not following Him and living an ungodly life in the midst of all of that, my life was changed without me even trying when I received a new spirit.

But the above still gives us no insight as to why you believe the Bible to be the word of God.

The only thing I can surmise, from the comment below, is that you believe the Bible to be the word of God because it causes–as the Mormons like to say–a type of “burning in your bosom” when you read it? Is that a correct assessment of why you believe the Bible is the word of God?

This happened after I was convinced from the Bible to repent, believed in and confess Jesus while giving my will over to the will of Jesus

Incidentally, you stated: “the Bible is the word of God and why nothing else deserves that title”…but I am almost certain that you believe* Jesus *is the Word of God. Is that right?

 

[PRmerger]

You note an impotant point, like others here have done already. Let me say a few things about the specific examples youvused though: 1) main stream Protestants probably don’t consider 7th Day Adventists, JW’s, Mormons and the like as legitimate Christian movements or churches (not my view neccessarily),

This is interesting. I had not heard that mainline Protestants do not consider SDAs to be legitimate Christians.

At any rate, it really is irrelevant as to whether they are Christians or not. The point is that all 3 of those groups claim to use the Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide them to the truth.

So, if your paradigm is correct and that the Holy Spirit will interpret Scripture for those who read it, then how can this Holy Spirit tell one group that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the another group that the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?

How can the Holy Spirit tell one group that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell another group that the Trinity is three persons in one GOD?

 

[joe370]

gerhardc;8484032]Hi Joe,
I hope I have answered your question in #511. My representative on earth to guide me in interpreting Scripture is the Helper whom the Father sent - the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Spirit is here with believers who have received Him.

So, no need for any protestant or catholic teaching office to guide you??? Truth is revealed to you directly from the holy spirit? OK…

 

[joe370]

And so the merry-go-round goes round and round and round and round and round…

I’ve asked on (at least) three separate occasions how those who subscribe to Sola Scriptura can explain that others who subscribe to the same doctrine come to different interpretations of scripture - proclaiming, of course, they are all inspired by the Holy Spirit?

The only conclusion to be drawn is that they proffer no answer because THEY HAVE NO ANSWER.

This particular merry-go-round not only isn’t going anywhere it’s not even mildly diverting anymore.

Sola scriptura is a 16th century man made tradition. Ironically, protestants, (like used to do as a former protestant) - reject tradition, except that one… Makes no sense to me…

 

[Marybeloved]

Gerhard,

Thank you. You are suggesting that a once-off fulfilling of a Holy Spirit initiative like canonizing the Bible and representing the Holy Spirit on earth for all other things following is the same thing. It is not. God can use a donkey to admonish to a man. That does not suggest that all donkey from that point onwards have the office of admonishing men. Thats a crazy thought. How can you believe it?

No, Gerhard. What is already amazing is how you can believe that the donkey ever spoke for God in the first place- And you apparently do. So let’s quit the “Oh how shocking!” attitude. It is simply not becoming (and actually quite hypocritical) of a person who believes that God from then on speaks to all the other donkeys in the same way, forever!:shrug:And this also, despite the fact that all these other donkeys who claim to be used by God the same way couldn’t disagree more on what God is actually saying to save their lives! I’d say that’s the very definition of a "crazy" thought- It literally requires you to perform intellectual somersaults and gymnastics that if translated into the physical world, puts any Olympian to shame. What did Einstein say was crazy?..Doing the same thing…expecting different results…for 500 years! After 40,000 + divisions!.. Yeah, I think we can see what is a really crazy belief very well.

Secondly, you have not yet told us how you know that the donkey spoke for God that once but not all the other times it claimed to speak for him, in the same tone and the exact same way as it spoke when it spoke for him that one time that you accept.

I’ve asked you many questions now that you refuse to answer:

-You claimed you can believe the unbelievable claims of our Lord because of his fruit, but not the Church because of bad fruit- I asked you to show me Christ’s fruit apart from the Church he started- you haven’t.
-You tried to use the abuse scandals to prove that the Church is not what she claims, I gave you very few examples of unparalleled good fruit of the Church- You dismissed them by pretending to use a higher standard of goodness/excellence for judging fruit- I asked you to show me a better example of “good fruit” than Catholic Saints, in particular one you must already know about, called Mother Teresa- You haven’t.
-The above question still remains- Where did God say he was using the church only that once? By what authority do you accept that one decision and not others of the same authority? By your “bible only” beliefs- This belief is unscriptural and false!
-Up till now, you’re yet to show us the doctrine of sola-scriptura in scripture! How can any one say “I believe in only the bible” and yet fail to show “in only the bible” that that belief is true or founded? By your “Bible only” standard, the belief in only the Bible is itself unscriptural and false!

Now,** please answer the questions** that have been put to you.

Peace!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Sola scriptura is a 16th century man made tradition. Ironically, protestants, (like used to do as a former protestant) - reject tradition, except that one… Makes no sense to me…

Hey, Joe

The bible says that we are saved by grace through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Is there something that the tradition of the Catholic church teaches more than this that is needed for our salvation and if so what is it? And if not why bother with it?