Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

[asd72]

Amen. Which means, for me–anyone interpreting faith alone to mean there are no acts of obedience to Jesus Christ required for His grace unto life are outside of the Bible.

Although I am LDS–I would agree with the Catholics. That is Biblical. But most Protestant denominations would call that false doctrine.

I don’t understand repentance and water baptism being a free gift–unless you are referring to the opportunity to do such. Repentance and water baptism was given for the remission of sins–and that is not a free gift–it is an opportunity. The free gift is described as such:

Romans 5:18—King James Version (KJV)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one **the free gift **came upon all men unto justification of life.

That free gift came to all men–regardless of faith.

Amen!! And that is my point–God gives His grace to those who obey Him–obedience to Jesus CHrist is a mandate for eternal life–and anyone who teaches that obedience is not necessary–is teaching a doctrine of satan, IMO.

Nope. The LDS are not faith alone–they believe in obedience to Jesus Christ as necessary for eternal life.

Not only sounds like–but commands it.

Hebrews 5:9—King James Version (KJV)

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Repentance and baptism are not the free gift, you are right. The gift God gives us is forgiveness of sin and everlasting life, because Jesus overcame sin and death. By free gift I mean we have not earned or merited it in any way, but we do have to appropriate it by faith and baptism.

 

[joe370]

Not based on what he said:
“…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”

and

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;"

He questioned its authorship, and the way James seems to speak very little of Gospel, but more of law. Its also a fact that he preached from James until his death.

Jon

Interesting Jon. So Martin Luther never, at any time, removed the book of James?

Who are the ancients that rejected the book of James? I am familiar with the following books being challenged, in terms of their authenticity, by some, which was why the CC stepped in (4rh century) and made an authoritative decision in order to put the matter to rest: 2 & 3 John, the Book of Revelation, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter,

 

[JonNC]

Interesting Jon. So Martin Luther never, at any time, removed the book of James?

Who are the ancients that rejected the book of James? I am familiar with the following books being challenged, in terms of their authenticity, by some, which was why the CC stepped in (4rh century) and made an authoritative decision in order to put the matter to rest: 2 & 3 John, the Book of Revelation, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter,

He’s speaking, specifically, of Eusebius, from what I understand. But you make the good point here, and this is the one the Lutheran reformers use regarding how we use the antilegomena of the NT. From the early Church, some books are universally attested, some are disputed, and still others are rejected. And we make use of each book based on this status.

Luther looks at James at the time, and says, essentially, that the mark of an apostolic writing is the Gospel, and James for the most part, is not about the Gospel, but of the law.
Is that bad? No! But we read James in light of the letters of Paul, and that of Peter, who speak of Gospel.
Paul constantly speaks of justification coming by faith apart from works. Why does James then say justified by faith and works? Is it a contradiction? No! James is speaking to the regenerate, those already justified, and speaks of the the importance of the regenerate following the law, following His commands to do good works. What good is justification without these? And he’s right.
When a pastor wants to admonish his congregation into doing Christ’s works, James is an excellent place to turn.

 

[dberrie2000]

Repentance and baptism are not the free gift, you are right. The gift God gives us is forgiveness of sin and everlasting life, because Jesus overcame sin and death. By free gift I mean we have not earned or merited it in any way, but we do have to appropriate it by faith and baptism.

For me–that is a Biblical fact. And that is the reason I have always related more with the Catholics–and rejected the faith alone theology–when it involves the absence of obedience to Jesus Christ for His grace unto salvation.

A Merry Christmas to you.

 

[JonNC]

For me–that is a Biblical fact. And that is the reason I have always related more with the Catholics–and rejected the faith alone theology–when it involves the absence of obedience to Jesus Christ for His grace unto salvation.

A Merry Christmas to you.

I’m happy you relate well to Catholics, even if it is based on a faulty understanding of sola fide. Curiously, I relate far more easily to Catholics than the OSAS / perseverance of saints types, as well.

Jon

 

[dberrie2000]

I’m happy you relate well to Catholics, even if it is based on a faulty understanding of sola fide. Curiously, I relate far more easily to Catholics than the OSAS / perseverance of saints types, as well.

One of my favorite buddies growing up as a teenager was Catholic–what a great family he had. I still keep in touch with him, occasionally, but he lives about 400 miles away now.

I always find myself defending the Catholics–and I believe it might have something to do with my early experience with them. Maybe it might have something to do with the fact I am LDS–and know how it feels to be chewed on.

Merry Christams to you, Jon.

 

[JonNC]

One of my favorite buddies growing up as a teenager was Catholic–what a great family he had. I still keep in touch with him, occasionally, but he lives about 400 miles away now.

I always find myself defending the Catholics–and I believe it might have something to do with my early experience with them. Maybe it might have something to do with the fact I am LDS–and know how it feels to be chewed on.

Merry Christams to you, Jon.

And a blessed Christmas to you. Yeah, old Martin Luther gets chewed on a bit, too.

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

No, they do not. Because most Protestants believe that Jesus died on a cross. But, as Jehovah’s Witnesses point out, the Bible does not say this. It is only an extra-biblical, traditional belief that Jesus died on a cross shaped instrument.

Sunday worship is also a tradition.

Plus, it is tradition that tells us what should be in the Bible itself!

 

[joe370]

No, they do not. Because most Protestants believe that Jesus died on a cross. But, as Jehovah’s Witnesses point out, the Bible does not say this. It is only an extra-biblical, traditional belief that Jesus died on a cross shaped instrument.

Sunday worship is also a tradition.

Plus, it is tradition that tells us what should be in the Bible itself!

What about Acts 2:23; did I miss something?

“…this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”

studylight.org/lex/grk/frequency.cgi?number=4362&book=ac&translation=nsn

 

[mackbrislawn]

What about Acts 2:23; did I miss something?

“…this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”

studylight.org/lex/grk/frequency.cgi?number=4362&book=ac&translation=nsn

Sure, in our translated bibles we have the word “cross.” The point the JW’s make is that “cross” is not the correct translation of the Greek word stauros. They maintain stauros should be better translated as “stake,” which does not imply a cross shaped instrument.

However, extra-biblical evidence, such as tradition, history, and archaeology indicate Jesus did die on a cross-shaped device. So, stauros has traditionally been rendered as “cross.”

But, if you deny the validity of tradition, as some Protestants pretend to do, you have to admit the JW’s are right.

 

[joe370]

Sure, in our translated bibles we have the word “cross.” The point the JW’s make is that “cross” is not the correct translation of the Greek word stauros. They maintain stauros should be better translated as “stake,” which does not imply a cross shaped instrument.

However, extra-biblical evidence, such as tradition, history, and archaeology indicate Jesus did die on a cross-shaped device. So, stauros has traditionally been rendered as “cross.”

But, if you deny the validity of tradition, as some Protestants pretend to do, you have to admit the JW’s are right.

 

[Truthstalker]

Lutherans follow the Bible along with the writings of Luther (Large Catechism, Small Catechism, etc). Reformed and Presbyterians follow the Bible along with the writings of John Calvin. Etc.

We don’t claim to follow the Bible alone. This is a straw man argument. “Sola Scriptura” means Scripture is the final authority. As to Calvin, we follow the Westminster Confession of Faith more than Calvin. He is hardly ever mentioned.

 

[batman1973]

We don’t claim to follow the Bible alone. This is a straw man argument. “Sola Scriptura” means Scripture is the final authority.

This:thumbsup:

 

[Porknpie]

We don’t claim to follow the Bible alone. This is a straw man argument. “Sola Scriptura” means Scripture is the final authority. As to Calvin, we follow the Westminster Confession of Faith more than Calvin. He is hardly ever mentioned.

So to the point of the OP, you do not follow scripture alone as scripture does not say it is the final authority…

So what authority says scripture is the final authority??

 

[PRmerger]

So to the point of the OP, you do not follow scripture alone as scripture does not say it is the final authority…

In fact scripture can not be the final authority because scripture doesn’t say that!

So what authority says scripture is the final authority??

Or what does Scripture actually profess is the actual authority?

The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth!

 

[pablope]

We don’t claim to follow the Bible alone. This is a straw man argument. “Sola Scriptura” means Scripture is the final authority.

Whene exercising authority…does this not denote an action…so…well…Hmmm…can you explain or demonstrate how the Bible can exercise its final authority?

As to Calvin, we follow the Westminster Confession of Faith more than Calvin. He is hardly ever mentioned.

 

[joe370]

We don’t claim to follow the Bible alone. This is a straw man argument. “Sola Scriptura” means Scripture is the final authority.

So, in terms of authority, no one person or one church leadership; just the Bible alone - correct?

 

[Truthstalker]

So to the point of the OP, you do not follow scripture alone as scripture does not say it is the final authority…

So what authority says scripture is the final authority??

God is the final authority. If He says something, it has authority. He spoke; what we have that He spoke are the Scriptures.

 

[CopticChristian]

God is the final authority. If He says something, it has authority. He spoke; what we have that He spoke are the Scriptures.

Truth,

I suggest you rethink this. The OHCAC believes that in many and varied ways God spoke to us through His Prophets and in these last days He spoke to us through His Son…

God spoke once and He said Jesus…

 

[Truthstalker]

Whene exercising authority…does this not denote an action…so…well…Hmmm…can you explain or demonstrate how the Bible can exercise its final authority?