Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

[CopticChristian]

Coptic Christian
**You do know what Sola Scriptura is and then I ask again, do you believe in the Bible alone and that the Bible interprets itself? **

Again, I wrote based on how the word “sola scriptura” is defined, and that Protestantism really does not strictly follow this…nobody really does. This is proven by the many different views on the bible, with so many different viewpoints coming from the same text…the proof is in the pudding.
I would say that certain Protestants do try to practice using the bible alone. I would say that mainstream Protestantism is not the main problem, the main problem is the authors and media gurus use sensationalism and other tactics to create an atmosphere to make a buck or two.
Lets take a look at ancient Judaism…Did they practice the torah alone…no! Here is a root of great controversy…the Oral Torah. There had to be an oral explanation of the Torah, many of the verses of the Old Testament would not make sense unless there was a explanation of these verses…I could go into great detail, but I dont have the time (baby in hand) This was the reason for the setup of Judges…as we all know from the scripture.
The Judges could decide any unusual case and was a form of case law.
The problem with this arises in the New Testament and is confronted by Jesus. There are exceptions and the Bible does not address every possible situation that might arise, but the religious establishment went way beyond the “spirit” of the law and ended up going off in other directions.
To sum it up very loosely, Technically a person can not follow sola scriptura to the letter, as this can run into problems, but to give a blank cheque to tradition or teachings that have no biblical source can be an equal or greater problem.
**
As for your next question of can we let the bible interpret itself**
This is actually a hard question because of religious bias.
If we look at most of the bible as a one-sided telephone conversation…we need to know the parties involved, the situation, the problem being addressed, the literary style(or styles) used…etc., Then one has to drop his or her pre concieved ideas (for example reading it as a Calvinist,Adventist or Catholic) and draw the meaning out of the text instead of forcing an idea into the text.
There is no bigger example of this than end times eschatology. The imagery of the book of Revelation is clearly rooted in the Old testament, Olivet discourse and Jesus’s words to Caiphus and the Sanhedrin during His trial.
So yes it can interpret itself

Happy,

So it appears that you accept Oral Tradition.

It appears that you choose not to answer yes or no that you accept the Bible alone.

You speak of Protestants as if at a distance.

You believe that the Bible can interpret itself.

Tell me then,

Where does the Bible say, take a stab, just show me one place where the Bible says that the Bible is inspired and is all I need to do what is necessary and gives me what I need.

Second tell me where the Bible tells you who wrote Mark and Hebrews.

Concerning Eschatology…Historically they are as follows:

Historic Premillinialism
Amellinianism
Postmillinialism
Premillinialism

Postmillineal thought is usually found in Calvinist/Reformed camps.

Premillianialism is of modern origin and is promulgated in Protestant groups such as the Adventist and Dispenationalist camps. Dispensationalism is found in many groups including some Evangelicals.

All Christian thought flows from the Catholic Church. You believe in Messianic Judaism.

Anglican broke from Catholic Church giving rise to Methodism…leading to Holiness Movement…leading to Pentacostal and most other Protestant groups including AOG and the non-denominational crowd.

Luther broke from the Catholic Church gvining rise to the Swedish Lutheran giving rise to the Swedish Evangelical giving rise to the Evangelical Free that you find in America and is Dispensational…Messianic Judaism has most if not all of the same beliefs that the Evangelical or Evangelical Free Church has so in essence is somewhat Lutheran and somewhat holiness.

You can read about Messianic Judaism and its Protestant roots here…

religioustolerance.org/mess_jud.htm

Overview:
Messianic Judaism is a religious movement, composed of faith groups that:

Regard themselves to be committed Jews.

Believe that Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) is the Messiah spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament).

Believe that they are following the practices and beliefs of the very early Christian movement.

Follow the Bible, which they refer to as the Tanach – the Old Covenant Scriptures – and the B’rit Chadasha (New Covenant Scriptures)

Almost all follow an evangelical Christian theology.

 

[CopticChristian]

I will ask you this since you are into the party politics of religion…
Why is it that the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches add books to the Old Testament, but have the same New Testament.
None of these is in the Jewish cannon…the Cannon addressed to them, used by them and experienced by them specifically.
The very important Jewish festival of lights was based on Maccabee revolt, but is not in their Cannon.
The book of Enoch and Jasher is used in the New and Old Testament…why is this not in the Protestant or Catholic Cannon? Or the Hebrew cannon?
When was there a set Cannon? When did the Catholic church have a set cannon?

I would like to share one thing…by arguing or debating the Bible we should show Christian generousity and charity…or we are really missing the point of the bible
The Bible was designed to deliver insight to the will of God, encouragement and guidance for living righteously.
It was never designed to create systematic theology…or party politics…
I will continue only if there is a spirit to learn and to teach

Happy,

This is a good question that infers you do not know much about the Bible.

I would ask yourself, where did the Bible come from?

Who put the books together that you call the Bible?

Were books added or subtracted?

If there is a Canon when was it decided, by whom, where?

Concerning the Catholic Church and the Canon…this answer will come as you ponder those questions. You may find Pork and others like Pablope or Nicea that are on these threads may help you in your quest. I kind of like to leave things to you to find out and ask along the way. You will discover more if you search and ask questions and then convince yourself of what is and what is not. Your discovery will aid your understanding.

Ok

 

[CopticChristian]

Whenever this debate pops up, I always find it helpful to move away from the discussion of whether sacred tradition is used in interpreting scripture… the fact of the matter is that scripture is only recognized as such as a result of Sacred Tradition.

The Bible in the form recognizable to us today wasn’t compiled in such a widely circulated form until the end of the 4th century. There isn’t enough historical evidence to determine the precise details how the process took place. We do know that the standardization occurred under the auspices of groups of early church leaders (bishops). Catholics and Protestants both essentially trust the line of sacred tradition that considers these texts scriptural. Scripture is, in a very real sense, tradition, especially when you consider that it was written down by mortal men, let alone validated by mortal men.

Not sure if this point has been mentioned yet, but if not I hope it injects something new to the debate.

Fit,

I would suggest that rather than interjecting what you know and accept that you look at what is being asked. If you know the answer that is good. The inquirer is aided greatly by dwelving into the question and answering rather than being given an answer that they may not understand. I ask you to look at the postings and consider that someone does not know what you know. Post as you will.

 

[bzkoss236]

Coptic,

I think that you’ve gone off the ball a bit with this topic. And I feel a bit as if you are harassing Happy. Also, I think you’ve completely missed the point of Happy’s first post in this topic. He was not arguing about the inspiration of books, he was not arguing which books are supposed to be in the Bible, he wasn’t arguing whether he was a Jew or Christian until after you provoked him. I would ask that you return to the true question to the topic at hand, which I feel Happy’s first post put a real insight into.

---

Happy,

In regard to your first post of the topic, I agree with your explanation. The term sola-scriptura itself lends to believe that scripture interprets itself, in which case no human would be able to validly interpret the Bible, because even one’s own opinions, experiences, and influences would affect how scripture would be interpreted, and thereby taking away from the validity, or truth, of the knowledge gained. Considering that the Bible was written with the hands of men, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of which was written from oral teachings prior, then the literal definition of sola-scriptura cannot be valid. Since those men would have written the Gospels and the letters, they would know the truth that is contained within. And they would have taught the truth within the letters by word of mouth in addition to the letters themselves. And what they taught would have been passed on up to the point of the collection of the Scriptures into the Bible and further. The knowledge passed on would then be used as a guide for how the Scriptures would have to be interpreted, not to mention with the addition of the knowledge of historical context, such as social norms of speech. If this all follows true, and the knowledge is still passed on, then that should also (somewhat) rule out prima-scriptura (i.e. Scripture comes first, and any oral teachings must be tested against it) by the fact that the Scriptures might not contain all the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. While it is sufficient, that does would make it the only reference of teaching truth. There are some teachings that may only have come through the knowledge passed on through each generation of Church leaders. And if such teachings exist, if it cannot be found in the Bible, but possibly in other forms of documentation or literature of earlier times (i.e. historical evidence), then on what grounds would someone have the right to throw out such beliefs or knowledge? I can’t think of a legitimate reason.

Also, to answer your question about “where [we] get those extra books”. The Catholic Bible’s Old Testament is based on the Septuagint (completed in 132 BCE) which was a Greek translation of a collection of Hebrew Scriptures. The collection of books was chosen based on what was determined to be inspired by God. I personally do not know what those criterion are. Protestant Bible’s Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Canon (Hebrew Bible), which omitted 7 of the books of the Septuagint. Some say this is because that they could not find original Hebrew versions of those books and therefore, are likely not to be inspired.

That is about as much as I can say for now.
God Bless

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,

I think that you’ve gone off the ball a bit with this topic. And I feel a bit as if you are harassing Happy. Also, I think you’ve completely missed the point of Happy’s first post in this topic. **He was not arguing about the inspiration of books, he **was not arguing which books are supposed to be in the Bible, **he wasn’t arguing whether he **was a Jew or Christian until after you provoked him. I would ask that you return to the true question to the topic at hand, which I feel Happy’s first post put a real insight into.

---

Happy,

In regard to your first post of the topic, I agree with your explanation. The term sola-scriptura itself lends to believe that scripture interprets itself, in which case no human would be able to validly interpret the Bible, because even one’s own opinions, experiences, and influences would affect how scripture would be interpreted, and thereby taking away from the validity, or truth, of the knowledge gained. Considering that the Bible was written with the hands of men, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of which was written from oral teachings prior, then the literal definition of sola-scriptura cannot be valid. Since those men would have written the Gospels and the letters, they would know the truth that is contained within. And they would have taught the truth within the letters by word of mouth in addition to the letters themselves. And what they taught would have been passed on up to the point of the collection of the Scriptures into the Bible and further. The knowledge passed on would then be used as a guide for how the Scriptures would have to be interpreted, not to mention with the addition of the knowledge of historical context, such as social norms of speech. If this all follows true, and the knowledge is still passed on, then that should also (somewhat) rule out prima-scriptura (i.e. Scripture comes first, and any oral teachings must be tested against it) by the fact that the Scriptures might not contain all the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. While it is sufficient, that does would make it the only reference of teaching truth. There are some teachings that may only have come through the knowledge passed on through each generation of Church leaders. And if such teachings exist, if it cannot be found in the Bible, but possibly in other forms of documentation or literature of earlier times (i.e. historical evidence), then on what grounds would someone have the right to throw out such beliefs or knowledge? I can’t think of a legitimate reason.

Also, to answer your question about “where [we] get those extra books”. The Catholic Bible’s Old Testament is based on the Septuagint (completed in 132 BCE) which was a Greek translation of a collection of Hebrew Scriptures. The collection of books was chosen based on what was determined to be inspired by God. I personally do not know what those criterion are. Protestant Bible’s Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Canon (Hebrew Bible), which omitted 7 of the books of the Septuagint. Some say this is because that they could not find original Hebrew versions of those books and therefore, are likely not to be inspired.

That is about as much as I can say for now.
God Bless

Did you know that Happy is a woman?

Read what Happy posted.

I have been married for 3 years and have never considered using NFP. I strongly believe that each child is such a blessing and a true gift from God! I think about mary and her situation and most of the scenarios that I can come up with do not come close!
We also have to realise that things do not wind up as we plan them!

I concieved on my honeymoon and miscarried 2 months later, then it took us 13 months before I concieved again.

Then I concieved 1 month after giving birth which ended in miscarriage again, now I found out I am pregnant after around 6 months.

I did not note that you are a moderator or Forum Administrator however thank you for the request.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,

I think that you’ve gone off the ball a bit with this topic. And I feel a bit as if you are harassing Happy. Also, I think you’ve completely missed the point of Happy’s first post in this topic. He was not arguing about the inspiration of books, he was not arguing which books are supposed to be in the Bible, he wasn’t arguing whether he was a Jew or Christian until after you provoked him. I would ask that you return to the true question to the topic at hand, which I feel Happy’s first post put a real insight into.

---

Happy,

In regard to your first post of the topic, I agree with your explanation. The term sola-scriptura itself lends to believe that scripture interprets itself, in which case no human would be able to validly interpret the Bible, because even one’s own opinions, experiences, and influences would affect how scripture would be interpreted, and thereby taking away from the validity, or truth, of the knowledge gained. Considering that the Bible was written with the hands of men, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of which was written from oral teachings prior, then the literal definition of sola-scriptura cannot be valid. Since those men would have written the Gospels and the letters, they would know the truth that is contained within. And they would have taught the truth within the letters by word of mouth in addition to the letters themselves. And what they taught would have been passed on up to the point of the collection of the Scriptures into the Bible and further. The knowledge passed on would then be used as a guide for how the Scriptures would have to be interpreted, not to mention with the addition of the knowledge of historical context, such as social norms of speech. If this all follows true, and the knowledge is still passed on, then that should also (somewhat) rule out prima-scriptura (i.e. Scripture comes first, and any oral teachings must be tested against it) by the fact that the Scriptures might not contain all the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. While it is sufficient, that does would make it the only reference of teaching truth. There are some teachings that may only have come through the knowledge passed on through each generation of Church leaders. And if such teachings exist, if it cannot be found in the Bible, but possibly in other forms of documentation or literature of earlier times (i.e. historical evidence), then on what grounds would someone have the right to throw out such beliefs or knowledge? I can’t think of a legitimate reason.

Also, to answer your question about “where [we] get those extra books”. The Catholic Bible’s Old Testament is based on the Septuagint (completed in 132 BCE) which was a Greek translation of a collection of Hebrew Scriptures. The collection of books was chosen based on what was determined to be inspired by God. I personally do not know what those criterion are. Protestant Bible’s Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Canon (Hebrew Bible), which omitted 7 of the books of the Septuagint. Some say this is because that they could not find original Hebrew versions of those books and therefore, are likely not to be inspired.

That is about as much as I can say for now.
God Bless

BZ,

I did not ask you. I asked Happy. You know. Happy does not.

 

[bzkoss236]

BZ,

I did not ask you. I asked Happy. You know. Happy does not.

If you noticed, the second half of my post was to Happy. Happy had asked the question in one of her posts.

I will ask you this since you are into the party politics of religion…
Why is it that the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches add books to the Old Testament, but have the same New Testament.
None of these is in the Jewish cannon…the Cannon addressed to them, used by them and experienced by them specifically.
The very important Jewish festival of lights was based on Maccabee revolt, but is not in their Cannon.
The book of Enoch and Jasher is used in the New and Old Testament…why is this not in the Protestant or Catholic Cannon? Or the Hebrew cannon?
When was there a set Cannon? When did the Catholic church have a set cannon?

And I apologize for missing that Happy is a woman, it was mostly a “you” I saw in the posts between you and Happy.

I did not note that you are a moderator or Forum Administrator however thank you for the request.

I am not a moderator, but I do like to keep people from going too far off topic, and to keep people from harassing each other instead of having a proper discussion if I feel that I am in an appropriate position to do so. Basically, to keep me from contacting a moderator

 

[happy_88]

Thank you so much for your nice replies…and yes, I am a female…juggling a baby and a keyboard at the same time!
Coptic Christian…I admire your vigilance with the Bible, but at this time I feel that you have too many strong feelings to have a friendly open discussion about theology, and it would end up with circular reasoning.Something about myself really bothers you and brings out very strong feelings, I do not think that it is wise to move forward.
I will not read your topic of “why Christians cant read the Bible” anymore than I will give any time to anyone who would state that “Catholics cant read the bible” or that Catholics are the beast of revelation or the pope is the Antichrist. This is not rational thought.
I would like to point out that the website “religious tolerance” is not a good reference site. In this site they mock our Lord Jesus as being at best linguistically challenged, but literally leaning to Jesus being a liar.
In this site they claim our Lord is clearly a liar since in the Olivet discourse, He claimed that the generation He was speaking to would see the end of the world and the second coming. Any serious scholar of the Bible knows thru the imagery that Christ spoke that He was not claiming this…except for the modern concept of dispensationism.

Naomi

 

[CopticChristian]

If you noticed, the second half of my post was to Happy. Happy had asked the question in one of her posts.

And I apologize for missing that Happy is a woman, it was mostly a “you” I saw in the posts between you and Happy.

**
I am not a moderator, but I do like to keep people from going too far off topic, and to keep people from harassing each other instead of having a proper discussion if I feel that I am in an appropriate position to do so. Basically, to keep me from contacting a moderator **

BZ,

You have been here a short time and you pose a threat to me. Complain. I have responded willing to complaints. I admit freely that I have been uncharitable on this site and I freely asked for forgiveness. It occured once and I recall the day and time and what I did. I have not done it again. Recently I started a thread that came to a point that I found myself wondering what the use was in contiunuing it and I asked for it to be closed. Would you like to know where that thread is? You have self appointed yourself to keep people from going off topic. Where did you get this self appointed designation? Why do you feel you are in an appropriate position? Do you know something I do not know?

I suggest you allow the moderators to do their job and the postings to flow freely without invoking your moderation. I suggest you register your complaints as you see fit. I suggest you consider that you are not the rule of thumb to decide who and what is harrasment. I find your threat harrasing and I will leave it at that.

 

[CopticChristian]

Thank you so much for your nice replies…and yes, I am a female…juggling a baby and a keyboard at the same time!
Coptic Christian…I admire your vigilance with the Bible, but at this time I feel that you have too many strong feelings to have a friendly open discussion about theology, and it would end up with circular reasoning.Something about myself really bothers you and brings out very strong feelings, I do not think that it is wise to move forward.
I will not read your topic of “why Christians cant read the Bible” anymore than I will give any time to anyone who would state that “Catholics cant read the bible” or that Catholics are the beast of revelation or the pope is the Antichrist. This is not rational thought.
I would like to point out that the website “religious tolerance” is not a good reference site. In this site they mock our Lord Jesus as being at best linguistically challenged, but literally leaning to Jesus being a liar.
In this site they claim our Lord is clearly a liar since in the Olivet discourse, He claimed that the generation He was speaking to would see the end of the world and the second coming. Any serious scholar of the Bible knows thru the imagery that Christ spoke that He was not claiming this…except for the modern concept of dispensationism.

Naomi

The United States has a history. The Church has a history and discussing history is not a theological discussion.

I pointed this out about Eschatology. Do you see any evidence of a theological debate here? I see an ordering of historical fact.

Concerning Eschatology…Historically they are as follows:

Historic Premillinialism
Amellinianism
Postmillinialism
Premillinialism

Postmillineal thought is usually found in Calvinist/Reformed camps.

Premillianialism is of modern origin and is promulgated in Protestant groups such as the Adventist and Dispenationalist camps. Dispensationalism is found in many groups including some Evangelicals.

I later praised your question and asked more questions…Do you see a theological discussion here? I see questions that are related to historical fact.

This is a good question that infers you do not know much about the Bible.

I would ask yourself, where did the Bible come from?

Who put the books together that you call the Bible?

Were books added or subtracted?

If there is a Canon when was it decided, by whom, where?

Concerning the Catholic Church and the Canon…this answer will come as you ponder those questions. You may find Pork and others like Pablope or Nicea that are on these threads may help you in your quest. I kind of like to leave things to you to find out and ask along the way. You will discover more if you search and ask questions and then convince yourself of what is and what is not. Your discovery will aid your understanding.

I promise that if I ask a theological question that I will pose it as a theological question. These are historical facts and questions related to historical facts. Note that I ended that last statement with “your discovery and understanding” of what theology? No, History.

 

[bzkoss236]

BZ,

You have been here a short time and you pose a threat to me. Complain. I have responded willing to complaints. I admit freely that I have been uncharitable on this site and I freely asked for forgiveness. It occured once and I recall the day and time and what I did. I have not done it again. Recently I started a thread that came to a point that I found myself wondering what the use was in contiunuing it and I asked for it to be closed. Would you like to know where that thread is? You have self appointed yourself to keep people from going off topic. Where did you get this self appointed designation? Why do you feel you are in an appropriate position? Do you know something I do not know?

I suggest you allow the moderators to do their job and the postings to flow freely without invoking your moderation. I suggest you register your complaints as you see fit. I suggest you consider that you are not the rule of thumb to decide who and what is harrasment. I find your threat harrasing and I will leave it at that.

Sigh… You misunderstood… I wasn’t threatening you. You were and are forgiven. I was merely pointing out that I didn’t want to end up seeing this turn into two people yelling at each other and getting nowhere as I have seen on other forums I’ve been too. I meant no harm. Forgive me if my post was not clear about that. I just want to see the posts go back on topic.

 

[CopticChristian]

Sigh… You misunderstood… I wasn’t threatening you. You were and are forgiven. I was merely pointing out that I didn’t want to end up seeing this turn into two people yelling at each other and getting nowhere as I have seen on other forums I’ve been too. I meant no harm. Forgive me if my post was not clear about that. I just want to see the posts go back on topic.

BZ,

I suggest you respond to posts directed at you and if you have something to add then do so. I believe you should look into what is called “rescuing”…It is not your job or my job to speak for someone else or rescue them from what I percieve…please understand that…from what ever it is you perceive. Your interloping in this dialogue is based on your perception. We are adults and should be able to speak for ourselves.

 

[birdrock]

Sorry to break in here, but I was catching up and found this post from Jon to be a good one, and thought I could pile on with some subjective impressions.

(how’s that for a disclaimer?)

Ok, let’s be clear. Lutheranism practices sola scriptura, which is the practice of the Church to hold all teachings and doctrines accountable to scripture as the final norm.
To the extent that Luther’s writings are accountable to scripture - some are, some are not - we accept them. We alo accept the ancient creeds and early councils, and the balance of the Lutheran Confessions.

Jon

Thanks Jon. This is also the general practice of Southern Baptists, Plymouth Brethren, and “Community” churches. Each has different emphases in worship and practice, but are united in the essentials. And the writings of scholars are studied – although seldom by the laity – from Polycarp through Chesterton, and including the reformers.

My impressions follow, so caveat emptor. As a layperson, the difference is not unlike a Baptist Rite, Brethren Rite, Community Rite, etc, all of them part of the catholic (small ‘c’) Church (big ‘C’).

I believe that this is the general practice of most of protestantism, to a greater or lesser degree. Wikipedia can say more about any particular denomination. And of course, individual churches vary in education, and leadership skills (and that seems to be a problem for evangelical churches).

Granted, several key ideas germinated during the reformation, which informs the positions of most of protestantism. That’s why they tend to be more similar than different, and usually pivot on a few well-worn hot buttons.

In essence, it means that a protestant could attend worship at (for example) a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Church of Christ, or Anglican church, (et al) without worrying that s/he is in an incorrect church.

 

[CopticChristian]

Sorry to break in here, but I was catching up and found this post from Jon to be a good one, and thought I could pile on with some subjective impressions.

(how’s that for a disclaimer?)

Thanks Jon. This is also the general practice of Southern Baptists, Plymouth Brethren, and “Community” churches. Each has different emphases in worship and practice, but are united in the essentials. And the writings of scholars are studied – although seldom by the laity – from Polycarp through Chesterton, and including the reformers.

My impressions follow, so caveat emptor. As a layperson, the difference is not unlike a Baptist Rite, Brethren Rite, Community Rite, etc, all of them part of the catholic (small ‘c’) Church (big ‘C’).

I believe that this is the general practice of most of protestantism, to a greater or lesser degree. Wikipedia can say more about any particular denomination. And of course, individual churches vary in education, and leadership skills (and that seems to be a problem for evangelical churches).

Granted, several key ideas germinated during the reformation, which informs the positions of most of protestantism. That’s why they tend to be more similar than different, and usually pivot on a few well-worn hot buttons.

In essence, it means that a protestant could attend worship at (for example) a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Church of Christ, or Anglican church, (et al) without worrying that s/he is in an incorrect church.

Birdrock,

Think nothing of it. Just one question.

Do you go to Church on Saturday?

 

[JonNC]

Sorry to break in here, but I was catching up and found this post from Jon to be a good one, and thought I could pile on with some subjective impressions.

(how’s that for a disclaimer?)

Thanks Jon. This is also the general practice of Southern Baptists, Plymouth Brethren, and “Community” churches. Each has different emphases in worship and practice, but are united in the essentials. And the writings of scholars are studied – although seldom by the laity – from Polycarp through Chesterton, and including the reformers.

My impressions follow, so caveat emptor. As a layperson, the difference is not unlike a Baptist Rite, Brethren Rite, Community Rite, etc, all of them part of the catholic (small ‘c’) Church (big ‘C’).

I believe that this is the general practice of most of protestantism, to a greater or lesser degree. Wikipedia can say more about any particular denomination. And of course, individual churches vary in education, and leadership skills (and that seems to be a problem for evangelical churches).

Granted, several key ideas germinated during the reformation, which informs the positions of most of protestantism. That’s why they tend to be more similar than different, and usually pivot on a few well-worn hot buttons.

In essence, it means that a protestant could attend worship at (for example) a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Church of Christ, or Anglican church, (et al) without worrying that s/he is in an incorrect church.

Gosh, I appreciate the kind words, but to be honest, I can’t agree with the last statement. Doctrine trumps practice. So if I have to choose between the practice of sola scriptura or the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist, for example, I choose the sacrament.
While i love and respect all my Christian siblings, I would feel more correct in a Catholic Church than any of the ones you mentioned, save the Anglican Church.

sorry.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

In essence, it means that a protestant could attend worship at (for example) a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Church of Christ, or Anglican church, (et al) without worrying that s/he is in an incorrect church.

:tsktsk:

I’m glad I read this without my coffee in my mouth. :coffeeread:

 

[happy_88]

Hi I thought that I would respond to the question of what bible I read. The 2 most popular bibles I read are usually the NAB and the NIV. I also like to read different bibles for different books of the Bible, if I read SOS then I like a more modern English version…a thought for thought instead of word for word…etc…
The Bible is such an amazing book, very unique and the message is so clear. Most other religions the words of that religion rest on one man in one little period of time (Joseph smith,Muhammed,Charles Russel) One man has a vision and everything hinges on that one man.
As with Catholics or Protestants both have their strengths and both have their weaknesses…tradition or Bible.
As I mentioned before tradition is practiced by everyone, but tradition has to have a datum point, or a point of reference.
For example in the Nicene or Apostles creed, the phrase that Jesus had descended into Hell is false and a mistranslation on the word Hades. while this was an honest mistake, because of the mindset of religion, it is hard to turn the ship around and correct it.
Another tradition I have heard and read thru protestant friends is that in Jerusalem there was a entry called the “eye of the needle” in the city wall. This is what many believe that Jesus refers to in His response to the rich man.
The problem with this is there never was an “eye of the needle” that camels had to cross under in Jerusalem in history.
But in religion this is related to as a fact and taught…this can be a problem once tradition becomes a fact.
While I can also note many good traditions, we should test everything in light of scripture(this is in the bible) and that the bible should be used as proof and reproof.
2Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
1John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Naomi

 

[birdrock]

Gosh, I appreciate the kind words, but to be honest, I can’t agree with the last statement. Doctrine trumps practice. So if I have to choose between the practice of sola scriptura or the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist, for example, I choose the sacrament.
While i love and respect all my Christian siblings, I would feel more correct in a Catholic Church than any of the ones you mentioned, save the Anglican Church.

sorry.

Jon

No worries, brother! Yes, doctrine does trump practice. And the eucharist, of course, is one of the well-worn hot buttons. I have questions with doctrines in some of these churches myself. However, I would not necessarily feel sullied by attending (for example) a church with Anglican affiliation. As always, individual mileage may vary, from person to person as well as congregation to congregation.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi I thought that I would respond to the question of what bible I read. The 2 most popular bibles I read are usually the NAB and the NIV. I also like to read different bibles for different books of the Bible, if I read SOS then I like a more modern English version…a thought for thought instead of word for word…etc…
The Bible is such an amazing book, very unique and the message is so clear. Most other religions the words of that religion rest on one man in one little period of time (Joseph smith,Muhammed,Charles Russel) One man has a vision and everything hinges on that one man.
As with Catholics or Protestants both have their strengths and both have their weaknesses…tradition or Bible.
As I mentioned before tradition is practiced by everyone, but tradition has to have a datum point, or a point of reference.
For example in the Nicene or Apostles creed, the phrase that Jesus had descended into Hell is false and a mistranslation on the word Hades. while this was an honest mistake, because of the mindset of religion, it is hard to turn the ship around and correct it.
Another tradition I have heard and read thru protestant friends is that in Jerusalem there was a entry called the “eye of the needle” in the city wall. This is what many believe that Jesus refers to in His response to the rich man.
The problem with this is there never was an “eye of the needle” that camels had to cross under in Jerusalem in history.
But in religion this is related to as a fact and taught…this can be a problem once tradition becomes a fact.
**While I can also note many good traditions, we should test everything in light of scripture(this is in the bible) and that the bible should be used as proof and reproof.
**2Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,/****B]
1John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Naomi

Happy,

You do realize that this passage read in context only refers to the Old Testament and does not speak for all of Scripture. This passage does not validate the New Testament as Scripture.

 

[Kdruesedow]

No, Protestants follow a man-made tradition, along with their own interpretation of the Bible.

Having grown up in a Lutheran household, I can tell you that this is untrue. They follow the bible as it is written, including the fact that we are saved BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH.
Luther and his followers left the Catholic church because they did not believe that they were carrying out this passage- ie paying penance for sins etc, along with some other reasons that were all related.