Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

[lonelypetunia]

I’m Anglican, not Protestant. The difference? I’m catholic but not Catholic. I don’t claim to be Sola Scriptura, but Prima Scriptura. That is, Scripture is the final authority, but Tradition, Reason and Experience all deserve due consideration and all bear on how we understand Scripture…

When I was active in my church we said I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. Obviously I was high Episcopalian.

Now, I have friends that go to what I would consider a more liberal more protestant type of church. My church was very much like the Catholic church in Mass and teachings.

 

[Adamski]

No it’s always bible plus someone’s opion,

Look at the niv bible it has cometary inside the bible on what each passage means

Acording to niv John 6 is a lesson on sharing, and following Jesus …

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

Actually, the bolded section is not a correct explication of Catholicism, Pauline.

Catholicism does not glean its doctrines from Scripture. Rather, the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ. Our doctrines come from Jesus, through His Apostles.

And not from a book, no matter how holy.

you know what I mean… fine… “are fit as proof texts of doctrine”

 

[Porknpie]

We believe that doctrine comes from Gods word alone, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who owns a bible is mr. Theologian guy.

Protestantism is not anarchy,

“Anarchy” defined from Merriam-Webster below. Self interpretation of scripture by definition, is a denial of any authority… “Anarchy”

1 a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

We read the works of competing theologians and when we have a question we read scripture, pray, an look at what great theologians such as Calvin or Luther had to say about it.

You look at two who also denied the authority of the Church and they didn’t even agree with each other. Speaking of great theologians, why not read the Early Church Fathers instead…those closest to Christ and his apostles?

They weren’t infallible (which is why it’s important to look at competing schools of theological thought), however many of them came to the same conclusions independent of each other after reading and studying scripture much more than your average Christian.

Hmm… Calvin had some pretty erroneous conclusions, disagreeing with Luther on the real presence in the Eucharist. Double predestination too. This goes against scripture and tradition of the Church (Catholic and Orthodox included)

Pauline - what’s your thoughts on why you disbelieve in the real presence?

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

“Anarchy” defined from Merriam-Webster below. Self interpretation of scripture by definition, is a denial of any authority… “Anarchy”

1 a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

You look at two who also denied the authority of the Church and they didn’t even agree with each other. Speaking of great theologians, why not read the Early Church Fathers instead…those closest to Christ and his apostles?

Hmm… Calvin had some pretty erroneous conclusions, disagreeing with Luther on the real presence in the Eucharist. Double predestination too. This goes against scripture and tradition of the Church (Catholic and Orthodox included)

Pauline - what’s your thoughts on why you disbelieve in the real presence?

1. My next statement shows it is not anarchic
2. I simply referenced to very good theologians, and when I say competing I do not mean within protestantism alone, it is beneficial to read the theologians of Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. The fact that these theologians sometimes make errors is the reason we must read competing theological view points that were not resolved by the early church (ie reading Augustine would be beneficial, reading Arius would not).
3. I believe in the real presence, as do my fellow Presbyterians. We do not believe in a physical, material real precedes though. We do no believe we are eating Christs physical body or his physical blood, but that participating in communion we are remembering him whereby we literally, spiritually eat his flesh, and are renewed. There is much significance to the communion. There is a major difference between the historical Protestant and the modern baptist view of many churches, you should read up on it (again proving my second point).

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

“Anarchy” defined from Merriam-Webster below. Self interpretation of scripture by definition, is a denial of any authority… “Anarchy”

1 a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

You look at two who also denied the authority of the Church and they didn’t even agree with each other. Speaking of great theologians, why not read the Early Church Fathers instead…those closest to Christ and his apostles?

Hmm… Calvin had some pretty erroneous conclusions, disagreeing with Luther on the real presence in the Eucharist. Double predestination too. This goes against scripture and tradition of the Church (Catholic and Orthodox included)

Pauline - what’s your thoughts on why you disbelieve in the real presence?

More on regard to Anarchy: Lutherans have the book of Concord. They do not consider it sacred but they consider it to be true, and follow it. We Calvinists have the Westminster standards, we do not believe them to be sacred, but none the less to be very accurate. Even the Baptists and Arminians have some creeds. There is a very distinct difference between Protestantism and Finneyism.

 

[PRmerger]

you know what I mean… fine… “are fit as proof texts of doctrine”

No, Pauline. We do not use the Scriptures for proof texting. Rather, the Scriptures support the faith, given once for all, to the saints.

 

[PRmerger]

More on regard to Anarchy: Lutherans have the book of Concord. They do not consider it sacred but they consider it to be true, and follow it. We Calvinists have the Westminster standards, we do not believe them to be sacred, but none the less to be very accurate.

“Accurate” is a very different animal than “authoritative.”

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

No, Pauline. We do not use the Scriptures for proof texting. Rather, the Scriptures support the faith, given once for all, to the saints.

That’s the definition of proof text, it proves the faith of the saints to be true as it, along with the faith, is perfect and eternal. They compliment each other.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s the definition of proof text, it proves the faith of the saints to be true as it, along with the faith, is perfect and eternal. They compliment each other.

Okay.

 

[englishredrose]

While I understand what you are saying, I do not think it is a correct explication of what is expected of us.

We are commanded to love God with our entire hearts, yes–that is what you are proposing here.

But we are also commanded to love God with our entire minds, souls and strength (see Matt 22:37). The “minds” part is what I think you seem to be dismissing] here.

Not dismissing …
Our minds will be as equally different for each of us as our souls and strength and God loves us for who we are and does not want us as robots but as unique individuals humanly loving him in return.

The Bible can help some but can hinder others perhaps? That is a question not a statement.

What is expected of us? Is anything expected of us apart from loving God with our own unique selves as he wants us to do? Or is it the Church demanding more - Man demanding more of each other rather than God. These are questions not statements but ones worth looking at because I do feel we put a lot onto ourselves and in the process forget how simplistic faith really is or as my priest was saying to me when I was asking about something, ‘its so simple its hard’ … and I think faith is like this because people want to put more and more into it where as all we need into it is ourselves.

words words words… command… God doesn’t want us to love Him through force or by an order which the word Command suggests. He wants us to freerly love Him. God could have Commanded us to love Him by making us robotic love but could see that love be useless as not real love. Not Command or dutifully but Love God because simply Love God and thats that… I think…?

 

[Porknpie]

What is expected of us?

What does Christ say? What are his words, words, words? He is the head of the Church…

Ephesians …For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body

Or is it the Church demanding more … words words words.

… God doesn’t want us to love Him through force or by an order which the word Command suggests. He wants us to freerly love Him. God could have Commanded us to love Him by making us robotic love but could see that love be useless as not real love. Not Command or dutifully but Love God because simply Love God and thats that… I think…?

Agree 100%.

 

[KathleenGee]

Catholics live their faith in Christ through the Oral Tradition, not text…even today with the printing press or the Vatican Library, greatest in the world.

 

[PRmerger]

Not dismissing …

So we are agreed that it is indeed important to contemplate the truths of God with our minds.

The Bible can help some but can hinder others perhaps? That is a question not a statement.

Indeed. That is why a Church is absolutely necessary.

What is expected of us? Is anything expected of us apart from loving God with our own unique selves as he wants us to do? Or is it the Church demanding more - Man demanding more of each other rather than God.

I am imagining what you would say to your Beloved, if he proposed to you and said, “Is anything expected of me apart from loving you?”

You might respond with the Catholic response which is, “Nothing more is required! Just love me with your entire being!”

And then you would also respond with the Catholic response: “And everything will be demanded of you! Your love will manifest itself by working hard for me!”

Imagine if your Beloved every day did not a single thing but told you, “But I love you, Red Rose! Isn’t that enough?”

…while your house looks like this:

http://www.jankarlsbjerg.com/old/blog/images/2004/02/09/MessyHouse.jpg

…and your Honey is sitting on the couch because all he has to do is love you.

 

[englishredrose]

So we are agreed that it is indeed important to contemplate the truths of God with our minds.

Indeed. That is why a Church is absolutely necessary.

I am imagining what you would say to your Beloved, if he proposed to you and said, “Is anything expected of me apart from loving you?”

You might respond with the Catholic response which is, “Nothing more is required! Just love me with your entire being!”

And then you would also respond with the Catholic response: “And everything will be demanded of you! Your love will manifest itself by working hard for me!”

Imagine if your Beloved every day did not a single thing but told you, “But I love you, Red Rose! Isn’t that enough?”

…while your house looks like this:

http://www.jankarlsbjerg.com/old/blog/images/2004/02/09/MessyHouse.jpg

…and your Honey is sitting on the couch because all he has to do is love you.

very sorry but I didn’t get the icon picture here.

we are all different as God wanted us to be different.
Am not sure what the division is here as there seems to be a division and I am lost to what trying to say in that I think we are saying the same thing in essence?
Though I don’t want the Church to mould me like you are as such. (No offence there at all as I don’t know you) I want the Church to recognise me as an individual as God intended and help Me love God as Me and guide me like as a living Bible I guess? The church is the Living Bible ? A new concept so pardon it if you’re not sure

The Love you are talking about in your anaology is human love and that to be confused with the Love we have for God is a confusing mix because the two Loves are completely different because God isn’t Human and it just simply is different and does actually make it more confusing by trying to describe Loving God as to Loving one human relation…

 

[PRmerger]

very sorry but I didn’t get the icon picture here.

It’s of a very messy house.

And the point is: if your husband tells you he loves you but that’s all he does, you wouldn’t be happy with that. At all.

we are all different as God wanted us to be different.

True, this.

Am not sure what the division is here as there seems to be a division and I am lost to what trying to say in that I think we are saying the same thing in essence?

It sounded like you were saying that all you have to do is love God, but that following the precepts of the Church are irrelevant. As well as contemplating God’s revelation through our study of what He has revealed.

The best thing about Catholicism is that it’s usually a both/and endeavor. Not an either/or.

Thus, we love God with our entire hearts AND with our minds. Love, love, love, but also follow the rules/precepts/commands/laws.

Though I don’t want the Church to mould me like you are as such. (No offence there at all as I don’t know you)

Do you want God to mold you? If so, then you need to give religious assent to His precepts.

And that means being obligated to Him through His Church.

**I want the Church to recognise me as an individual as God intended and help Me love God as Me and guide me **like as a living Bible I guess? The church is the Living Bible ? A new concept so pardon it if you’re not sure

Amen to the bolded section! Not sure what you mean about you being a living Bible though.

If you mean to preach the gospel through your actions, then

 

[PRmerger]

The Love you are talking about in your anaology is human love and that to be confused with the Love we have for God is a confusing mix because the two Loves are completely different because God isn’t Human and it just simply is different and does actually make it more confusing by trying to describe Loving God as to Loving one human relation…

You are aware, Red Rose, that the theme of God’s love for humanity being analogous to a marriage is found in the Scriptures all over the place, right?

Our human love is an icon of our covenant with God.

So the analogy is absolutely apt here. And Scriptural.

 

[PRmerger]

. God doesn’t want us to love Him through force or by an order which the word Command suggests. He wants us to freerly love Him. God could have Commanded us to love Him by making us robotic love but could see that love be useless as not real love. Not Command or dutifully but Love God because simply Love God and thats that… I think…?

And this is very Catholic of you to say, Red Rose!

The ONLY way you know that God doesn’t want us to love Him through force is because the Catholic Church taught you this. :yup:

 

[Arrowsmith1994]

PulinePresbytr,

You said that you “literally, spritually eat his flesh” but don’t believe in the real presence. You may have mistakenly used the word “literally”. You may have been using the word to simply add emphasis to your statement, but saying that you literally eat his flesh is to say that you really do that. That would be more consistent with the Catholic/Apostolic view of communion. As a former Presbyterian, I have struggled with this teaching. Keep searching, it is out there…

God Bless and Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[Indifferently]

Now, this is my first post on here so please go easy on me!

For my own part, my attitude to the Bible is summarized by Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, found at the back of the Book of Common Prayer:

“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.”

This is not the same as ‘sola scriptura’, and does allow for the importance of tradition and a variety of beliefs, but it also means that beyond the Bible, beliefs that cannot be proved by it are not ‘necessary’. (This doesn’t mean they are necessarily proscribed - I have a lot of sympathy with my Anglo-Catholic brothers and sisters on that point and value their rich tradition and contribution to our faith.)