Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

[Truthstalker]

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

No.

I haven’t studied this well enough to really discuss it well. I think I would probably confuse everyone if I did. But no. The church has authority, but the church is under authority.

 

[Truthstalker]

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…

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Jesus is far more than the Father’s locution, if that is what you are saying.

 

[joe370]

No.

I haven’t studied this well enough to really discuss it well. I think I would probably confuse everyone if I did. But no. The church has authority, but the church is under authority.

Jesus’ church leadership (Jesus said, I will build my church…) derives all its authority from God, in an ineffable way. Agreed.

 

[pablope]

I believe you have heard of the church…

So…what you are saying…it is not the Bible that exercises authority…it is the church…so it is not Bible alone?

In other words…it is the Bible that is not the final authority…it is the Church…is this what you are saying?

Q: Are the WCF inerrant or inspired? Are they free of error? Who declared WCF to be free of error?

Is the person who declared the WCF free from error infallible?

The WCF (singular) is a document drawn up to reflect what Scripture says - what authority it has is derived from Scripture. It is neither inerrant or inspired. I think it was written by a bunch of theologians. It is not infallible.

Then…if the WCF is neither inerrant and infallible…how can you be sure it is free of error?

Those theologians who wrote it…how can you be sure they were not free of error when they wrote it?

Here in Gal 2…Paul recounts how he submits his gospel to the Apostles at Jerusalem…to be sure he is teaching the same gospel and is not in vain.

This kind of reflects this passage from 1john…1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

So who, with apostolic lineage, approved the WCF, in accordance with the model and example shown by St. Paul?

For example, I can make the statement that Jesus is the Son of God and show you passages to support that. My statement is authoritative only so far as it correctly represents what Scripture says. I would not describe my statement as inerrant, inspired or infallible - but I would say it accurately reflects what Scripture says.

Then why should I believe you if you are not infallible? Did the Bible give you that authority?

See, here another example of St. Paul…in Acts 13…Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Paul is ordained, that is why he has authority.

So how do I know that you reflect the correct interpretation of Scripture?

I presume with your religious affilition, you do not believe in the Real presence…so why should I believe your unbelief in the Real Presence? What is your authority to declare that it is not the Real Presence?

Does that help? Your post seems to demonstrate for me more than anything I have ever seen on CAF how far apart Catholics and the Reformed are in their thinking. I am not even sure you can read what I wrote the way I intend, because we use words so differently.

That is why it is good to ask questions and clarity answers with further questions.

 

[mackbrislawn]

No.

I haven’t studied this well enough to really discuss it well. I think I would probably confuse everyone if I did. But no. The church has authority, but the church is under authority.

That’s true. The Church is under authority. And that authority is Jesus. Jesus is the Head of the Church, and the Church is His Body. Jesus exercises His authority through His Body, which is the Church.

 

[Truthstalker]

God is the final authority. He gave us the Bible. We are supposed to do what it says, both individually and corporately. The church has authority only insofar as it conforms to the Biblical standard.

Then…if the WCF is neither inerrant and infallible…how can you be sure it is free of error?

I don’t really worry about it.

Those theologians who wrote it…how can you be sure they were not free of error when they wrote it?

I don’t really worry about it.

Here in Gal 2…Paul recounts how he submits his gospel to the Apostles at Jerusalem…to be sure he is teaching the same gospel and is not in vain.

This kind of reflects this passage from 1john…1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

So who, with apostolic lineage, approved the WCF, in accordance with the model and example shown by St. Paul?

Apostolic lineage is not necessary. I don’t really think Paul’s “model and example” here is relevant.

Then why should I believe you if you are not infallible? Did the Bible give you that authority?

Are you infallible? Why should I believe you? You seem to think that infallibility is required before you believe anything. I don’t think you demand that the Catholic Church declare everything it teaches to be infallible, do you? There is only a small body of dogmas that have been infallibly declared, and I am not sure you all even agree on what is in that. Most Catholic teaching is at a lower level than infallibly declared.

Back to the Bible. If it says, “God is love”, and I say, "the Bible says,‘God is love’, my statement does not have to be infallible, does it? You can look and see that the Bible says that. I don’t regard infallibility as anything necessary. Maybe not even desirable.

See, here another example of St. Paul…in Acts 13…Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Paul is ordained, that is why he has authority.

So how do I know that you reflect the correct interpretation of Scripture?

Compare it against Scripture. How do I know you have the correct interpretation? Only because you say you do.

I presume with your religious affilition, you do not believe in the Real presence…so why should I believe your unbelief in the Real Presence? What is your authority to declare that it is not the Real Presence?

I don’t have any authority. Furthermore, Protestant pastors are known to frequently say things like, “Don’t just believe me - check what the Bible says.” But at the same time they will have a defense in depth of what they believe the Bible says. And a willingness to change should they be shown to be wrong.

Off-thread: we believe that Christ is truly and really present in and with and of the Communion elements, but not that there is an actual physical change. I am not getting that right, because it is very nuanced. From my own personal experience and that of others I know He is very much present in a very real way. If I remember correctly we meet him by faith. That meeting is a real meeting, not a hypothetical one, and things happen. But that is off thread.

I know a woman who after she was widowed for years tasted very warm salty wine and meaty bread when she took the elements - it was Jesus’ way of confirming His presence to her. I have no reason to doubt her. I have had things happen. Others have. Usually it is very very personal and is not discussed, because we look at Jesus and not after miracles. He has not abandoned the Protestants in our sacraments.

 

[joe370]

Truthstalker God is the final authority. He gave us the Bible. We are supposed to do what it says, both individually and corporately. The church has authority only insofar as it conforms to the Biblical standard.

How would that have worked prior to the codification and compilation of the Holy Bible? Say, from AD 33 to AD 300?

How would the practice of sola scriptura even work prior to the invention of the printing press?

 

[Truthstalker]

How would that have worked prior to the codification and compilation of the Holy Bible? Say, from AD 33 to AD 300?

How would the practice of sola scriptura even work prior to the invention of the printing press?

This is an old question, discussed innumerable times. Let me see if I can remember the answer off the top of my head… First, they had the Old Testament. Secondly, they had the apostles, whose letters were instantly recognized as Scripture (there is a cross-reference, I think Peter talking about Paul’s writings as Scripture). So they had the apostolic writings just as soon as they were being written - copies were made. We have more copies of the New Testament than of any other ancient document. You can see Paul commanding that his letters be read and distributed, I think in one of the Corinthian epistles? So the Scriptures were available, and have been available, continually. Canonization is another subject. Hi, PR, I’m thinking of you here, dear.

And I think the term “Sola Scriptura” is misleading for you. “Sola” here is in the sense of it is the pinnacle. As I have said above, it is not that the church is without some authority. And from my Patristics readings, I am struck by how frequently Scripture is appealed to as the basis of an argument. Tradition is almost never appealed to, if ever. The Reformers, in their supposed “invention” of SS, were picking up on the mood prevalent in the early Church Fathers - you will find the same appeal to Scripture in Augustine, although he is always more complex - in formulating the expression “Sola Scriptura” - Scripture alone as the final authority, not the sole authority. Other authority is subordinate, but still authority.

I don’t reject tradition, or Tradition. But I consider that what is in T must be consistent with Scripture, and not in a forced way. I think there is a reason we were given Scripture and not just a church.

 

[Porknpie]

How would that have worked prior to the codification and compilation of the Holy Bible? Say, from AD 33 to AD 300?

How would the practice of sola scriptura even work prior to the invention of the printing press?

And…adding…how do you know the bible is from God?

And…adding…which bible do you view as from God? One with 66 books, 73 books or another number?

 

[Nicea325]

No.

I haven’t studied this well enough to really discuss it well. I think I would probably confuse everyone if I did. But no. The church has authority, but the church is under authority.

Yes the church is under the authority of God…not the Bible per se as many believe.

 

[Nicea325]

This is an old question, discussed innumerable times. Let me see if I can remember the answer off the top of my head… First, they had the Old Testament. Secondly, they had the apostles, whose letters were instantly recognized as Scripture (there is a cross-reference, I think Peter talking about Paul’s writings as Scripture). So they had the apostolic writings just as soon as they were being written - copies were made. We have more copies of the New Testament than of any other ancient document. You can see Paul commanding that his letters be read and distributed, I think in one of the Corinthian epistles? So the Scriptures were available, and have been available, continually. Canonization is another subject. Hi, PR, I’m thinking of you here, dear.

And I think the term “Sola Scriptura” is misleading for you. “Sola” here is in the sense of it is the pinnacle. As I have said above, it is not that the church is without some authority. And from my Patristics readings, I** am struck by how frequently Scripture is appealed to as the basis of an argument. Tradition is almost never appealed to, if ever. ** The Reformers, in their supposed “invention” of SS, were picking up on the mood prevalent in the early Church Fathers - you will find the same appeal to Scripture in Augustine, although he is always more complex - in formulating the expression “Sola Scriptura” - Scripture alone as the final authority, not the sole authority. Other authority is subordinate, but still authority.

I don’t reject tradition, or Tradition. But I consider that what is in T must be consistent with Scripture, and not in a forced way. I think there is a reason we were given Scripture and not just a church.

Actually your comments higlighted in red are completely false. Tradition and scripture are both used. What other source was used to attack the Arians about Christ divinity?

 

[kwortham]

pablope;10180054:

God is the final authority. He gave us the Bible. We are supposed to do what it says, both individually and corporately. The church has authority only insofar as it conforms to the Biblical standard.

If this were true, then there would be a verse in the bible claiming itself the pillar and ground of truth. Where is that verse? Where is the direct God given table of contents that tell you which writings belong in the bible?

The bible was given to us in the late 4th century by the authority of the Church. The Catholic Church gave us the table of contents. The Church gave us the bible. The bible did not give us the Church. Here are some more questions:

What verse says, “The church has authority only insofar as it conforms to the Biblical standard?” If true, and if sola scriptura were also true, then where are the verses declaring it to be true. For sola scriptura to be true, then there MUST be a verse declaring itself to be the sole authority.

What does scripture bow down to as being the pillar and ground of truth?

Aside from the original sola scriptura heretics (gnostics), give us list of authorities that taught sola scriptura from the 1st century up until the “reformation.” You can’t do it because they don’t exist outside of heretical circles.

Give us a listing of the protestant canon of scripture, exactly as it is today, before the 16th century. The exact 66 books that protestants claim as the bible is nowhere to be found listed in history until Luther started ripping complete sections out of the bible. Go ahead and try it. Give me a historical listing of the protestant bible of 66 books from the 1st century, from the 2nd century, from the 3rd century, from the 4th, the 5th, the 6th and etc… The protestant canon is no where to be found until the time of Luther. To be sure, the KJV version contained the whole bible until the start of the 20th century.

 

[mackbrislawn]

When we say the Bible is the final authority, what we really mean is that the Bible is the final authority for forming our opinions. It is said that opinions are like noses–everybody has one. We all form our opinions about the meaning of scripture, and we form these opinions based upon various, often unconscious, assumptions and biases concerning what scripture is, what it is for, to whom scripture is written, and so on.

Scripture is the final authority in making our opinions, and the Westminster Confession, Augsburg Confession, etc, are merely that–opinions. One may agree with them or not, but is that what we base our truth upon: opinion? Is opinion the pillar and foundation of the truth?

That is why Catholics look to the Church for the resolution of conflicting opinions. Since Jesus is the Head of the Church, He will not allow His Cnurch to resolve the conflict incorrectly. That is the problem Catholics have with the Protestant paradigm: conflicts and differences of opinion are resolved by splitting, and by following particular persuasive pastors.

That is why the Bible is never alone. It is always accompanied by our hidden assumptions and the persuasiveness of our pastor.

 

[Truthstalker]

Yes the church is under the authority of God…not the Bible per se as many believe.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Please show me something from someone who believes they are under Biblical authority but not under God’s authority. ??

 

[Truthstalker]

Actually your comments higlighted in red are completely false.

Well, thanks, I guess, about the rest.

Tradition and scripture are both used. What other source was used to attack the Arians about Christ divinity?

Please show me where Tradition was used to attack the Arians, from an ECF. An effective attack can be mounted using Scripture alone.

 

[CopticChristian]

pablope;10178271:

I believe you have heard of the church…

The WCF (singular) is a document drawn up to reflect what Scripture says - what authority it has is derived from Scripture. It is neither inerrant or inspired. I think it was written by a bunch of theologians. It is not infallible.

For example, I can make the statement that Jesus is the Son of God and show you passages to support that. My statement is authoritative only so far as it correctly represents what Scripture says. I would not describe my statement as inerrant, inspired or infallible - but I would say it accurately reflects what Scripture says.

Does that help? Your post seems to demonstrate for me more than anything I have ever seen on CAF how far apart Catholics and the Reformed are in their thinking. I am not even sure you can read what I wrote the way I intend, because we use words so differently.

Truth,

Then I say that this is not so and you must prove to me that the source that you quote has any meaning beyond the pages it was written on. What evidence is there that this writing has any authority other than ink?

 

[Truthstalker]

Truthstalker;10180927:

pablope;10180054:

If this were true, then there would be a verse in the bible claiming itself the pillar and ground of truth.

Not necessarily. Please show me why that necessarily follows.

Where is that verse? Where is the direct God given table of contents that tell you which writings belong in the bible?

That’s silly, don’t you know? You simply list the inspired books and then you have a table of contents. It’s not necessary.

The bible was given to us in the late 4th century by the authority of the Church.

So no one knew what was Scripture for almost 400 years until a council told them what was Scripture? That statement falls flat on its face.

What verse says, “The church has authority only insofar as it conforms to the Biblical standard?”

Jesus’ church conforms to His desires. He laid out His desires in Scripture.

If true, and if sola scriptura were also true, then where are the verses declaring it to be true. For sola scriptura to be true, then there MUST

be a verse declaring itself to be the sole authority.Again, not necessarily.

What does scripture bow down to as being the pillar and ground of truth?

Nothing. I find this amusing, actually, that you take a Scripture in which the Scripture states what the church is and turn it upside down. In that passage Scripture is saying what the church is, not the church saying what Scripture is. It flows from Scripture to the church, not the other way around.

Aside from the original sola scriptura heretics

watch it

(gnostics), give us list of authorities that taught sola scriptura from the 1st century up until the “reformation.” You can’t do it because they don’t exist outside of heretical circles.

Just read the ECF and you will realize they appeal to Scripture frequently and the Tradition seldom if ever.

Give us a listing of the protestant canon of scripture, exactly as it is today, before the 16th century. The exact 66 books that protestants claim as the bible is nowhere to be found listed in history until Luther started ripping complete sections out of the bible.

Go ahead and try it. Give me a historical listing of the protestant bible of 66 books from the 1st century, from the 2nd century, from the 3rd century, from the 4th, the 5th, the 6th and etc… The protestant canon is no where to be found until the time of Luther. To be sure, the KJV version contained the whole bible until the start of the 20th century.

Well, Melito of Sardis came close on the OT around 190 AD. The NT was pretty much settled early on, I forget when. Muratonian canon? I don’t recall. I think the NT was settled by the Council of Carthage in the early 400s - it was a local council. This is off the top of my head, sorry. And “Luther started ripping…” comes close to violating Forum rules about respecting other people’s beliefs, which is distracting. The Protestant canon was inside the larger collection, so I suppose it was to be found in it. There is a question that still remains concerning the exact regard the church has historically had for the Apocrypha. The Orthodox include all 4 of the books of the Maccabees while you include only 2. So the Protestant canon has been there. Or are you accusing someone of adding a book that was not there before?

The point is that whether it was a 66 book canon or not does not really matter in regards to Sola Scriptura.

 

[CopticChristian]

pablope;10180054:

God is the final authority. He gave us the Bible. We are supposed to do what it says, both individually and corporately. The church has authority only insofar as it conforms to the Biblical standard.

I don’t really worry about it.

I don’t really worry about it.

Apostolic lineage is not necessary. I don’t really think Paul’s “model and example” here is relevant.

Are you infallible? Why should I believe you? You seem to think that infallibility is required before you believe anything. I don’t think you demand that the Catholic Church declare everything it teaches to be infallible, do you? There is only a small body of dogmas that have been infallibly declared, and I am not sure you all even agree on what is in that. Most Catholic teaching is at a lower level than infallibly declared.
Back to the Bible. If it says, “God is love”, and I say, "the Bible says,‘God is love’, my statement does not have to be infallible, does it? You can look and see that the Bible says that. I don’t regard infallibility as anything necessary. Maybe not even desirable.

Compare it against Scripture. How do I know you have the correct interpretation? Only because you say you do.

I don’t have any authority. Furthermore, Protestant pastors are known to frequently say things like, “Don’t just believe me - check what the Bible says.” But at the same time they will have a defense in depth of what they believe the Bible says. And a willingness to change should they be shown to be wrong.

Off-thread: we believe that Christ is truly and really present in and with and of the Communion elements, but not that there is an actual physical change. I am not getting that right, because it is very nuanced. From my own personal experience and that of others I know He is very much present in a very real way. If I remember correctly we meet him by faith. That meeting is a real meeting, not a hypothetical one, and things happen. But that is off thread.

I know a woman who after she was widowed for years tasted very warm salty wine and meaty bread when she took the elements - it was Jesus’ way of confirming His presence to her. I have no reason to doubt her. I have had things happen. Others have. Usually it is very very personal and is not discussed, because we look at Jesus and not after miracles. He has not abandoned the Protestants in our sacraments.

Truth,

God is the final authority, He gave us a Son, that built a Church, that was a mystery hidden for all ages and that Church produced a Bible…where does the book say that all must conform to the book.

What is believed is revealed and the Catechism contains what is believed through Scripture and Tradition.

The Trinity you accept was revealed and not necessarily discerned through Scripture, as evidenced by your Protestant offshoots, Jehovah Witness, Mormons and Oneness Pentacostals.

 

[Truthstalker]

When we say the Bible is the final authority, what we really mean is that the Bible is the final authority for forming our opinions. It is said that opinions are like noses–everybody has one. We all form our opinions about the meaning of scripture, and we form these opinions based upon various, often unconscious, assumptions and biases concerning what scripture is, what it is for, to whom scripture is written, and so on.

Scripture is the final authority in making our opinions, and the Westminster Confession, Augsburg Confession, etc, are merely that–opinions. One may agree with them or not, but is that what we base our truth upon: opinion? Is opinion the pillar and foundation of the truth?

That is why Catholics look to the Church for the resolution of conflicting opinions. Since Jesus is the Head of the Church, He will not allow His Cnurch to resolve the conflict incorrectly. That is the problem Catholics have with the Protestant paradigm: conflicts and differences of opinion are resolved by splitting, and by following particular persuasive pastors.

That is why the Bible is never alone. It is always accompanied by our hidden assumptions and the persuasiveness of our pastor.

Ok. I do not think though, that Catholics are willing to state that every doctrinal matter has been completely ironed out, never to be changed again. Catholics have opinions. When something is infallibly declared, that just shifts the ground: you then have opinions about what has been infallibly declared, and what it means, right?

 

[CopticChristian]

Ok. I do not think though, that Catholics are willing to state that every doctrinal matter has been completely ironed out, never to be changed again. Catholics have opinions. When something is infallibly declared, that just shifts the ground: you then have opinions about what has been infallibly declared, and what it means, right?

Truth,

Wrong.

The Catechism is divided into 4 parts…

We Believe…this is what we believe
We live…the Sacraments, based on what we believe and we live
We strive to be Holy by modeling Christ as revealed in what we Believe
We pray and ask for help in what we believe

Provide some notions you have of things not ironed out.