Sola Scriptura . . .

[tdgesq]

I’m familiar with that position. That is why I say it is because the bible a technical manual that’s written for the church to go by. For what use is the church without a sensible guideline? The Church is consisted of believers, is it not?

With all respect, I have no idea what you are saying here.

I know where you’re going but that’s not say the RCC church is any better. For instance, the church hasn’t decided on the following issues:

-Whether to take Genesis 1 & 2 literally
-If the Vatican II is a legitimate council
-If the pope is legitimate or not

The last two are indisputable teachings of the Catholic Church. Those in positions of authority in the Church who disagree have been disciplined and in many cases excommunicated. Even so, the examples I used all relate to salvation. How does taking Genesis 1 & 2 literally or allegorically bear on individual salvation? Protestants can’t even agree from the Bible alone what steps to take to be saved. How is sola Scriptura sufficient if its followers substantially disagree on how we are saved?

I don’t consider it weaker. It’s more clearer and easier to grasp. I’ve already sorted through the dozens of charges and yet they’re all the same. Why don’t you pick up a book by Eric Svendsen called “Evangelical Answers” and James White’s “The Roman Catholic Controversy”. It’s not that hard, is it?

I’ll read both of them if you read two of my suggested books about Roman Catholicism. Do we have a deal?

 

[Church_Militant]

Okay, here we go:

I believe full proof for SS in the NT is a literal, straightforward reading/interpretation of 2 Tim 3:14-4:2.

“the Holy Scriptures are able to instruct you for salvation…All Scripture…is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work…Preach the Word”

This is an indication that the words of God which we have in Scripture are all we need in order to be saved and are sufficient to equip us for living the Christian life. If there is any good work God wants Christians to do, God has made provision in His Word for training the xn to do it. (Let me know if we need to do more in depth grammatical/contextual/exegetical battle on this.)Cool! This is pretty much what I was waiting for so we can roll forward with the discussion. Thanks!

As I think someone else may have already pointed out, a “literal, straightforward reading/interpretation of 2 Tim 3:14-4:2” is not what you have offered, but a fundamentalist interpretation of the passage that asserts that it says something that in fact it does not.

As you have cited, “All Scripture…is profitable” but nowhere does the passage even imply that it is the sole authority upon which all Christian belief must rest. It’s simply not there.

This is why Jesus said
"Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth

"
Sanctify means to set apart from sin, to be holy and separated to God. According to Jesus, this happens by means of inscripturated truth.There is a problem here with this interpretation.

John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. and then 14: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. The New Testament tells us that Jesus is the Word of God.

John 14:6: Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. In saying “Thy word is truth” and praying that His disciples be sanctified by that word, don’t we see here that inescapable principle that Our Lord is that we are sanctified by Him and not by the Bible. I don’t thing any Christians that I have ever encountered would argue this position.

Consider it please…

I want to go to more passages, such as Mark 12:24, 2 Pet 1:3, Mt 4:1-11, Lk 11:28, Lk 16:27, Heb 4:12, James 1:25, 1 Pet 2:2, and OT passages such as Dt 6:4 and Psalm 19, but I think there is a more pressing issue that needs to be addressed (plus, I think it’s fair that you contribute a fair share of the work here )

That sounds like the stuff of other threads…You can count on me to offer my share.

Since I have answered you, and before tearing apart the above, please answer me:

Too late…

WHERE DOES SCRIPTURE EVER SUGGEST TAHT THERE ARE UNWRITTEN TRUTHS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR OUR SPIRITUAL WELL BEING. IOW, show me where the NT cautions believers from sola scriptura, and says "you need Scripture plus…I can guess a few places you’ll go here, and ask you to please bring it on. Then lets have at each other’s responses.
**

By that same token where does the scripture say that the Bible is the sole source that one needs for salvation. It’s not in there MB.
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

And just another quickie…To suggest taht the Word of God is insufficient -that more is needed- is the basis for virtually every cult that pretends to be Christian. A common point of cults is a belief that people need the Bible plus something else, such as the writings of some “enlightened” prophet (Islam, Mormon), or in the RCCs case, the edicts of church tradition.

Peripheral and effectively off topic, but I’ll respond and then we can save that for another day and another thread.

The problem that you face here is that you act like there is no verifiable written historical record of what the early church believed and taught, and modern individuals who sit down with a Bible in hand can always arrive at a correct belief from their personal reading, if that was true, then why did you just bust your backside to graduate from a Bible college? On the supposition that anyone can sit down with a Bible and come up with correct belief 100% of the time makes such training superfluous at best and lacking in faith at worst I would think. Why bother?

Frankly, I cannot answer for various cults and other religions. They are only my problem so far as I interact with them and in the case of most of them, they are (generally) a derivative of the error of SS, in that that is where they began to go wrong.

The Catholic Church maintains the same interpretations of scripture that are expressed in the writings of the early church. To suppose (for instance) that Ignatius of Antioch was in error in the things that he taught as the bishop of that city when in fact he was a close friend and disciple of St. John and gave his life as a martyr for the faith that he held is (to a Catholic like me) a nearly insane concept.

I realize that for a protestant to discover that the Bible is not the sole authority he has been taught it is makes them feel as if they are cut adrift from some security of their faith, but, the verifiable reference to the ECF and 2,000 years of Christian belief insures that we understand the Word of God the same way that they did.

I am not at all distressed by this idea… in fact I find it greatly reassuring to discover that the faith I hold today is so closely tied in to the real original New Testament (“full Gospel”) Christian Church. Many n-C churches, both denom and non- proclaim themselves to be so, but when one compares their beliefs and practices to those of the early church, (again…Ignatius of Antioch is a very good example!) you discover that that is simply not true. I did and so I am Catholic and I praise God for that.

 

[Church_Militant]

O4G,
Could you please learn to use the quote feature here the way most of us do. It is virtually impossible to figure out who is saying what in your posts, and that discourages most folks from even trying to respond.

It’s really simply.
Hit http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cak/quote.gif, then go to the bottom of the post screen that you see and cut the tag off the last line and then paste it at the end of the first part of the post you wish to respond to. I always tap the enter key a couple of times to get myself some room to write, and then insure that the cursor sit just past that tag, and then answer that part.

Then drop down to the next section that you intend to respond to and highlight that section and then click http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/editor/quote.gif the quote button and it will place the tags for you, then just got to the end of that particular quote and respond and repeat that process for each subsequent section. It makes it infinitely easier to read and understand what is going on in the posts, as you can see from those of us who use it.

I think you’ll find that it gets you more and better responses.

 

[NotWorthy]

I hope I’m not repeating a previous post (I’d hate to bug MB11 anymore ), but the Ethiopian in Acts ch. 8 seems to disprove Sola Scripture.

If the Bible stressed Sola Scriptura, the Ethiopian would have simply needed to read the Scriptures and pray, and the Holy Spirit would have led him to the truth on his own.

But since the Bible doesn’t stress Sola Scriptura, the Holy Spirit guided Phillip, a member of the Church, to help the Ethiopian interpret the Scriptures in light of Jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As James White pointed out, we need to “cut through the fog”. -Scriptures are regula fidei or the infallible rule of faith something James Whites puts bluntly.

James White? The same James White that Patrick Madrid destroyed in their debate on sola scriptura ten years ago?

I’ll ask you the same question Madrid asked White: "Where does the bible claim sufficiency? It doesn’t.

And before you get too wound up, let me tell you that I have the audio CD, the transcript of the debate from White’s own site and the follow up articles, etc. all of which I’ve listened to and read at least a dozen times.

-If you wanted to be a Christian, the use of the scriptures is the only thing you’ll ever need to find out how.

Obviously, the proper interpretation of scripture is a key component, don’t you think?

Tradition, that is what’s outside of the text [Bible], isn’t considered to be binding on the Christian because there’s no basis for it.

Did public revelation end with the death of the last apostle? Since that is not in scripture, how do you know this?

Which books should be included in the canon? Since that is not in scripture, how do you know this?

Is the canon now closed and set, or are we free to add or subtract from the canon today? Since that is not in scripture, how do you know this?

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[jemfinch]

Okay, here we go:

I believe full proof for SS in the NT is a literal, straightforward reading/interpretation of 2 Tim 3:14-4:2.

“the Holy Scriptures are able to instruct you for salvation…All Scripture…is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work…Preach the Word”

This is an indication that the words of God which we have in Scripture are all we need in order to be saved and are sufficient to equip us for living the Christian life.

This isn’t an indication that the words of God which we have in Scripture is all we need; if anything, it’s an indication that the words of God that Timothy had in Scripture is all he needed.

1. “All Scripture” (which should be “All Scriptures,” properly translated) applied to the Scriptures that Timothy had known “from childhood.”
2. A “Man of God” was not just any Christian man: he was a leader appointed by God. This man, already trained in the elementary doctrines of the apostolic deposit, is made complete by knowing Scripture, but this passage does not indicate at all that without this initial training, he could become a man of God in the first place.

These aren’t wild interpretations here; these are clear and consistent with Paul’s wording in the passage. “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” The teaching of the apostolic deposit preceded completion by the Scriptures. Only after remembering from whom He learned did Paul call Timothy to reflect on the sacred writings.

If there is any good work God wants Christians to do, God has made provision in His Word for training the xn to do it. (Let me know if we need to do more in depth grammatical/contextual/exegetical battle on this.)

That’s certainly not in the text.

This is why Jesus said
“Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth”
Sanctify means to set apart from sin, to be holy and separated to God. According to Jesus, this happens by means of inscripturated truth.

No, according to Jesus, this happens by means of God’s word. You’re begging the question: you’re assuming that “God’s word” is entirely written down, a theory that is nowhere recorded in Scripture and flatly contradicted by Scripture.

In Scripture, we see that the Apostles spoke the word of God:

“And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.” (Acts 4:31)

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

“And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:19-21)

Since I have answered you, and before tearing apart the above, please answer me:

WHERE DOES SCRIPTURE EVER SUGGEST THAT THERE ARE UNWRITTEN TRUTHS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR OUR SPIRITUAL WELL BEING.

Scripture clearly indicates that the entirety of Apostolic Tradition is binding, whether transmitted by writing or by speech. Where does Scripture ever suggest that the entirety of Apostolic Tradition would be written down in theopneustos Scriptures?

And just another quickie…To suggest taht the Word of God is insufficient -that more is needed- is the basis for virtually every cult that pretends to be Christian. A common point of cults is a belief that people need the Bible plus something else, such as the writings of some “enlightened” prophet (Islam, Mormon), or in the RCCs case, the edicts of church tradition.

Your point?

Jeremy

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sola Scriptura Disproved from Scripture

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected the messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.

An inerrant Bible without an infallible interpretation is worthless.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[down_under]

I don’t think that that is accurate based on Act 2:38 DU…

i think you need to read again. The holy spirit was given at pentocost to those in the upper room the 11 and the others who were present. These were the people God church was founded on ( I think that should be agreeable not ment to be inflamitory) these were the people who God set up to run HIS church. These were the people who were promised the guidence of the holy spirit. Not just any joe blow. The apostles ordatined bishops everywhere they went and set up churches as they saw necessary. But the promise of the holy spirit as quide perpetually belongs to THAT church. Not to just anyone who picks up a book and reads it. I was not there in that upper room neither were you. We have to go to his church if we want the guidance of the holy spirit. Again which one. like I said look to the fathers. Look to those holy wirters who wrote between 90 and about 130 and see what the early church looked like and then you will have some idea what you are looking for.

 

[MrS]

i think you need to read again. [1] The holy spirit was given at pentocost to those in the upper room the 11 and the others who were present. These were the people God church was founded on ( I think that should be agreeable not ment to be inflamitory) these were the people who God set up to run HIS church. These were the people who were promised the guidence of the holy spirit. Not just any joe blow. The apostles [2] ordatined bishops everywhere they went and set up churches as they saw necessary. [3] But the promise of the holy spirit as quide perpetually belongs to THAT church. Not to just anyone who picks up a book and reads it. I was not there in that upper room neither were you. We have to go to his church if we want the guidance of the holy spirit. Again which one. like I said look to the fathers. Look to those holy wirters who wrote between 90 and about 130 and see what the early church looked like and then you will have some idea what you are looking for.

[1] Actually the “birthday” of the Catholic Church came after the start or inception of the Church on Peter… kinda like birth comes after conception.

[2] The apostles ordained many others as bishops… but not everywhere they went. The seven churches are mentioned not because they were the biggest, but perhaps because they were the only centers, dioceses, of the Church. And the clear understanding then and now is that the church-in-a-particular-city is only part of the Catholic Church when it is in union with the Church, and acknowledges Peter or his successor as the first among equals.

[3] Very true… unless you are “protesting” authority

.

 

[Church_Militant]

i think you need to read again. The holy spirit was given at pentocost to those in the upper room the 11 and the others who were present. These were the people God church was founded on ( I think that should be agreeable not ment to be inflamitory) these were the people who God set up to run HIS church. These were the people who were promised the guidence of the holy spirit. Not just any joe blow.

The apostles ordatined bishops everywhere they went and set up churches as they saw necessary. But the promise of the holy spirit as quide perpetually belongs to THAT church. Not to just anyone who picks up a book and reads it. I was not there in that upper room neither were you. We have to go to his church if we want the guidance of the holy spirit. Again which one. like I said look to the fathers. Look to those holy wirters who wrote between 90 and about 130 and see what the early church looked like and then you will have some idea what you are looking for.I would agree with you if what you are saying about the Holy Spirit was Biblically accurate, but it’s not. I can stack up the New Testament references to prove my point.

Returning again to the 2nd chapter of Acts, (since the day of Pentecost is so far the crux of your premise) look at verses 38 & 39.
38: And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” Just based upon this alone we have St. Peter’s Pentecost message telling them, to repent, be baptized, and that they will receive the Holy spirit…and that the promise is also to their children and “to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

For another instance, I suggest that we look at Acts 10:44-48
44: While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
45: And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
46: For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
47: “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
48: And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Cornelius and the people with him were not apostles, yet this passage tells us that they “have received the Holy Spirit just as we have”, so… I’m sorry but your statement is not accurate according either the New Testament or the teachings of the Church.

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER THREE
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

683 "No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit."1 “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!”'2 This knowledge of faith is possible only in the Holy Spirit: to be in touch with Christ, we must first have been touched by the Holy Spirit. He comes to meet us and kindles faith in us. By virtue of our Baptism, the first sacrament of the faith, the Holy Spirit in the Church communicates to us, intimately and personally, the life that originates in the Father and is offered to us in the Son

I certainly agree with you that the Church is given special graces that keep it squared away with respect to what it teaches, but the idea that only the bishops and the magisterium have the Holy Spirit, (If I have understood your post correctly) is not an accurate statement.

 

[Church_Militant]

I hope I’m not repeating a previous post (I’d hate to bug MB11 anymore ), but the Ethiopian in Acts ch. 8 seems to disprove Sola Scripture.

If the Bible stressed Sola Scriptura, the Ethiopian would have simply needed to read the Scriptures and pray, and the Holy Spirit would have led him to the truth on his own.

But since the Bible doesn’t stress Sola Scriptura, the Holy Spirit guided Phillip, a member of the Church, to help the Ethiopian interpret the Scriptures in light of Jesus.

:doh2: How’d I ever miss that!

Thanks NW! :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[NotWorthy]

I certainly agree with you that the Church is given special graces that keep it squared away with respect to what it teaches, but the idea that only the bishops and the magisterium have the Holy Spirit, (If I have understood your post correctly) is not an accurate statement.

Just because I’ve received the Holy Spirit, doesn’t mean I have the same charisms as the Church.

**I think that is what Down Under is driving at. The Church is given the Holy Spirit, among other things, to teach the faithful the truth. **

 

[Linkowski]

Because fundamentalists believe it is scripture which leads to eternal life:

Jn 5:39: You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me;
40: yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

And choose not to come to Christ and his body to have eternal life.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Just a chime in…

1Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

You certainly cannot deny that the preaching of the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

 

[guanophore]

Just a chime in…

1Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

You certainly cannot deny that the preaching of the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

No, we do not deny the value of the written word, or the preached word. But jesus IS the Word and not the book itself, or the preaching thereof. It is a person, and not the book.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In response to my post above, I received the following PM from a non-Catholic:

Your quote doesn’t reflect what SS means. SS didn’t mean that one would be able to produce a “sound” unity of the church. It’s a strawman. The Reformers never said that the principle produces sound infallible churches, if that were the case, then yes you would be right.

Furthermore, the point you bring across proves exactly your lack of knowing SS. The “30,000” denominations is one example. Ignorance of plainess of the scriptures does not mean the scriptures are not sufficient. If you forget a step or purposely ignore the step, it does not mean the directions were faulty.

Any thoughts on this, anyone?

 

[Contarini]

In response to my post above, I received the following PM from a non-Catholic:

Any thoughts on this, anyone?

The first paragraph is a point I have often made. But of course some Protestants do think that Sola Scriptura will produce church unity (if we can only get it right, something these people think is possible), and this is sheer insanity.

Furthermore, if SS does not produce church unity, then we need to figure out what does, if we are not to defy Christ’s wishes for us and the stern injunctions of St. Paul.

That’s why I think all the arguments about SS are really a distraction from the real issue–or at least from the issue that works most effectively for Catholics. I see no a priori reason why there could not be a Church with valid claims to universality and antiquity that taught the doctrines of the Westminster Confession. But as a matter of fact there isn’t. There are only two churches with such claims, it seems to me, and neither of them happens to believe in Sola Scriptura!

Edwin

 

[NotWorthy]

Non Catholic to Randy Carlson:

Furthermore, the point you bring across proves exactly your lack of knowing SS. The “30,000” denominations is one example. Ignorance of plainess of the scriptures does not mean the scriptures are not sufficient. If you forget a step or purposely ignore the step, it does not mean the directions were faulty.

But the major trumpet line of SS is that Scripture is easy to interpret when the Holy Spirit guides you, and the Holy Spirit is there to guide everyone who asks.

The fruits of this theory, yet, is the numerous denominations that have sprung up, each clinging to the same doctrine, that of SS.

 

[MrS]

But the major trumpet line of SS is that Scripture is easy to interpret when the Holy Spirit guides you, and the Holy Spirit is there to guide everyone who asks.

The fruits of this theory, yet, is the numerous denominations that have sprung up, each clinging to the same doctrine, that of SS.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_13_2.gif exactly… and since the Holy Spirit is not One of division… the result of all the “private” or “individual” interpretation is the chaos we see in all non-Catholic faith communities… they are without the guidance of the ONLY authority to lead and feed - given by Jesus Himself to only the Catholic Church.

 

[Church_Militant]

Just because I’ve received the Holy Spirit, doesn’t mean I have the same charisms as the Church.

**I think that is what Down Under is driving at. The Church is given the Holy Spirit, among other things, to teach the faithful the truth. **

And with this I would fully agree.