Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zenkai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As an apostle, Paul had his authority “not from man, but from God”. **Timothy was actually raised in a Christian home; this means he heard the preaching of the apostles, evangelists, prophets, teachers, and so on through the Ephesians 4 list. **
Along those lines, Jesus preached from the OT, but He preached a fulfillment of the law and the prophets, “as one with authority”. All Christians acknowledge that Christ is the Head of the Church, and the Church is the Body of Christ.

I don’t know, but it seems to me that the apostles themselves were like prophets in a way; when they spoke the word of God, it was the word of God. And their words were of fulfillment of the OT scriptures, but their words were also treated like scripture, right?
Bird,

Timothy was raised in a Christian Home?

This is a miracle…truly a miracle. Timothy…recall what you learned as a child, having been raised in a Christian home…

Hey Paul, yeah…when I was a child, I spoke as a child, thought as a child…and at that time when I was a child were you that guy…Saul of Tarsus…well Yeah…so what…so if you were Saul…and I was a child…then those scales had not fallen from your eyes…and…so…

I was not raised in a Christian home…Oh Yeah that…Saul…
 
I am not going ouitside of scriptuire as I showed you thru scripture that the apostles did identify each others writings.
This is not, in and of itself, proof of canonicity. There are non-canonical books referenced in both the Old and New Testaments, and there are canonical books not referenced anywhere else in the Bible.
Can anyone with a clear objective of searching for the truth bounce some ideas around?
I asked several questions in post #101 back on page 7, which no Protestant has been willing (or even able) to answer, which IMO should be part of any search for the truth.

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? Yes or no?

The answer, of course, is “No.” The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across. Again, from 1 Cor 11:18-19, it is obvious that there were those among the Corinthians who believed different doctrines. Who taught them these different doctrines, the Apostles? I don’t think so.

Well, if the Apostles didn’t teach different doctrines, then why is it okay for the pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations to teach different doctrines one from another? And, if it wasn’t okay for the Corinthians to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that caused division within the Christian congregation…then why is it okay today for Protestants to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that cause division within Christianity? This whole business of not only ignoring doctrinal differences within Protestantism, but actually justifying them with this essential vs. non-essential garbage is something that has no biblical basis whatsoever. Yet, Protestants don’t ever give it a second thought, and they continue to rail constantly against Catholics for the “un-biblical” nature of our beliefs (according to their fallible interpretations of the Bible).

**Did the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church believe it was okay to have false doctrines within the Church? Yes or no? **

The answer, of course, is “No.” Why, then, do Protestants believe it’s okay for any denomination that has one or more contrary doctrines from theirs, to do so? (Protestants do believe it is okay to do so, at least, as long as these false doctrines are “non-essential.”) For that matter, where does the Bible ever once mention that there is such a thing as a “non-essential” doctrine?
**
Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no? **

The answer to this question is “Yes.” Paul commands Titus to “have nothing more to do with” any man who is “factious,” after he has been warned once or twice (Titus 3:10). Or, as the King James Bible puts it, “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself,” (Titus 3:10-11). So why do Protestants, for the most part, all believe it’s okay to worship and fellowship with those who believe and teach different doctrines and that there is absolutely no problem in doing so?

Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?

The answer, of course, is “Yes.” Paul to Titus, speaking of those who are bishops, that they should “Give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it,” (Titus 1:9). “Teach what befits sound doctrine,” (Titus 2:1). “Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Tim 1:14). “That you may charge certain persons not to teach ANY different doctrine,” (1 Tim 1:3) - no mention here that it’s okay to teach different doctrine, as long as it is “non-essential.”

Conformity to doctrine is commanded in all of these instances by Paul. And we know that Paul is inspired by the Holy Spirit Who was sent by Jesus, so Jesus, as did the Apostles, does indeed demand conformity to the doctrines He taught.

Which begs the question, why do Protestants think it’s okay to not have doctrinal conformity amongst the various denominations? How can they think that the lack of doctrinal conformity could in any way be of God?

Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching on faith and morals? Yes or no?

The Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth, as Jesus said they would be (John 16:13), had to have been infallible in their teaching on faith and morals. They were teaching what they were taught by Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit. Which means, they all taught one and the same set of truths. Which means there is one, and only one, set of truths that it is okay to believe in and which everyone should believe in.

Can you be “one” with someone who believes in false doctrines? Yes or no?

The answer, quite clearly, is no. Jesus tells us He is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” (John 14:6). So, if He is the Truth, and we must know the truth to be set free (John 8:32), and it is only those who are “of the truth” who hear the voice of Jesus (John 19:37), then how can you be one with someone who does not have the whole truth, who may not have been set free, and who may not be hearing the voice of Jesus - a clear reference to Jesus as shepherd and His sheep hearing His voice. Which means if you don’t hear His voice you probably are not one of His sheep. Can a believer in the fullness of the truth be one with someone who has, at best, only partial truth?
 
Although, as I understand it from the teaching of my Church…having put the Bible together…not all writings were from the Apostles.
Correct. Only two of the Gospels were written by eyewitness Apostles (Matthew and John). Neither Luke (a companion of Paul) nor Mark (a companion of Peter) were Apostles.
 
I can find verses that condemn tradition, but is this necessary? If you believe a certain way then this wii not be worth the time or effort. Tradition not based on scripture was a leading reason for the jews rejection of the Messiah which resides in Judaism today…
JL: Yes we can find in scripture the condemning of traditions of men made a doctrine to nullify the Word of God.

The Church RECEIVED her beliefs from the Word of God, handed down by the Apostles, whether by WORD (Oral Apostolic Tradition) or EPISTLE (Scripture), 2 THES 2:14. The Church was orally teaching, preaching, converting and faithfully passing on that Apostolic Tradition about twenty years before the first word of the NT was written. Except for John all the apostles were dead before the NT was completely written and centuries before a set canon of books.

The Scriptures tell us to HOLD FAST to BOTH, oral AND written, Traditions. Yet many ignore their proclaimed only authority, inventing a tradition of men, to nullify scripture. Going outside scripture saying ALL Oral Tradition is now in scripture. Even though scripture clearly says we are to hold BOTH. There isn’t any scripture telling us Oral Traditions are ALL now in the written Word. But there are several that tell us to hold Tradition. The burden of proof would be on those who claim ALL Tradition is in scripture. Both are the Word of God.

[1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when **ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]

Oral Divine or Apostolic Traditions are discerned by the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Oral and Written Traditions cannot be contradictory. Oral Traditions are found in the constant lived out life of the Church. It is discerned from teachings of councils, popes, writings of the Fathers, creeds, prayers, liturgy, etc…

There are traditions of men and Divine Tradition. Divine Traditions are those Traditions handed on by the apostles whether by word (oral) or epistle (scripture) 2Thes2:15. There are also traditions of men. Christ didn’t even condemn traditions of men EXCEPT when those traditions of men nullify the Word. [Mk7:13 **Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.]

Examples of traditions of men, made a doctrine, to nullify the Word, would be. Faith alone saves, born again the minute one believes, baptism profession only, belivers only baptism, sola scriptura, scripture interprets scripture, all oral Apostolic Tradition now in scripture, OSAS, invisible church, irresistible grace, dispensationalism, secret rapture. None of those are taught in the Bible they actually contradict it.

A doctrine taught by the apostles orally would be the canon of the bible, The evidence is found in the lived out Traditions of the Church and those books agreement with that Tradition. Another, infant baptism, the evidence is found in the scriptures, where it is implied, and the constant lived out Tradition of the Church. Others would be the Trinity. The evidence is found in the scriptures, where it is implied, and the lived out Tradition of the Church as discerned and defined by Councils or the Pope. The mode of baptism by immersion is not taught in the bible. It is only known thru the lived out Tradition of the early Church. When the Lord’s prayer is concluded with; for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory now and forever. That is an oral Tradition coming from the liturgy (worship service) being said after the Lord’s Prayer.

1Tim6: Timothy, KEEP THAT WHICH IS COMMITTED TO THY TRUST, avoiding profane and vain babblings,

Philip4:9 THOSE THINGS, which YE HAVE both LEARNED, and RECEIVED, and HEARD, and SEEN IN ME, DO

Jn14: 26: But the Comforter, which is THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, WHATSOEVER I have SAID UNTO YOU.

2Tim2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And THE THINGS that THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, THE SAME COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be **ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS **also.

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.

[2Thes3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye **WITHDRAW yourselves FROM EVERY BROTHER THAT WALKETH disorderly, and NOT AFTER THE TRADITION which he RECEIVED OF US.]

As far as, 2Tm3:16-17, teaching scripture ALONE it doesn’t. In fact Paul tells Timothy to USE his teaching authority (magisterial authority) USING both scripture and Oral Tradition. You need to back up just to verse 14.

[2Tm3:14 But **CONTINUE THOU IN THE THINGS WHICH THOU HAST LEARNED AND hast BEEN ASSURED OF, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;]

Now pick up VERSE 15-17 and continue into chapter 4. There we see Timothy an overseer (bishop) IS the teaching AUTHORITY. That authority, Timothy, is to PREACH THE WORD, REPROVE, REBUKE, EXHORT WITH DOCTRINE. Making full use of his MINISTRY.

[Verse:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

2Tm4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 PREACH THE WORD; be instant in season, out of season; REPROVE, REBUKE, EXHORT WITH all long suffering and DOCTRINE. 3 For THE TIME WILL COME WHEN THEY WILL NOT ENDURE SOUND DOCTRINE; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 AND THEY SHALL TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, MAKE FULL PROOF OF THY MINISTRY]

[2TIM 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And **the THINGS that thou hast HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.]

[2 TIM 1:13 **HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.]

Why do you think Baptist interpret scripture differently than Presbyterians? And Presbyterians differently than Pentecosts, etc. They all have the same scriptures and all claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit in their interpretation. Each use their own passed on oral traditions handed down to interpret scripture. Sola Scriptura has done nothing but create a Tower of Babel, scattering people of faith into thousands of contentious denominations. All speaking their own faith language no longer understanding the one faith language delivered once to the saints, the Church, 1Tm3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in THE HOUSE OF GOD, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH. Sola Scriptura is nothing more than a tradition of men, Satan’s playground. The scriptures their sole authority tells them the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHRUCH, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
 
To answer my point of Paul was addressing timothy, what was he addressing? The text does not support WHY he told timothy this. Was Paul adressing the Law, prophets and psalms pertaining to Jesus’s fulfillment of the scriptures as he regularly does. If he was adressing the whole OT then he is contradicting his own teachings. He had persecuted christians based on the OT. Do I need to be any clearer?
As for the corinthians, what was the division? Clearly we can see that the subject was going back to their old ways before they were converted.the subject is sexual perversion,idolitry is raised,then he rebukes this and follows up with the gospel. This is not fodder for catholics againsst protestants or adventists against protestants, or baptists against calvinists
God is bigger than them all
As for the topic of can I prove the scriptures as infallible? No I cannot…if I could then atheism would be a distant memory
I cannot prove the Deity of Jesus either,this would be the nail in the coffin of Islam
I cannot prove that God even exists, or Dawkins would be corrected
I also cannot prove any book of the bible was written by any author
Yet, thru rational thought and being equiped I can reason that the bible is true and have equiped others to beleive
 
The previous post was really good! Thank you for the intelligent well thought out remarks. Your view was what I was refering to in my previous posts. Going to far in tradition can be a literal noose and likewise with sola scriptura. One quick example would be the marriage ceremony. It is not described in the bible and is tradition
I would agree with everything that you write except about scripture interpreting scripture. Nowhere is this more essential than eschatology. This why people go on long roads of fantasy. Read a newspaper and force it into the bible.
I also wonder about the many different churches out there…is there also many different churches under the catholic and orthodox umbrellas?
Those tradttions you wrote are more realistic…that other list was not really tradition as the. Poster even admitted some were in the bible…that is not really tradition
 
To answer my point of Paul was addressing timothy, what was he addressing? The text does not support WHY he told timothy this. Was Paul adressing the Law, prophets and psalms pertaining to Jesus’s fulfillment of the scriptures as he regularly does. If he was adressing the whole OT then he is contradicting his own teachings. He had persecuted christians based on the OT. Do I need to be any clearer?
As for the corinthians, what was the division? Clearly we can see that the subject was going back to their old ways before they were converted.the subject is sexual perversion,idolitry is raised,then he rebukes this and follows up with the gospel. This is not fodder for catholics againsst protestants or adventists against protestants, or baptists against calvinists
God is bigger than them all
As for the topic of can I prove the scriptures as infallible? No I cannot…if I could then atheism would be a distant memory
I cannot prove the Deity of Jesus either,this would be the nail in the coffin of Islam
I cannot prove that God even exists, or Dawkins would be corrected
I also cannot prove any book of the bible was written by any author
Yet, thru rational thought and being equiped I can reason that the bible is true and have equiped others to beleive
Happy,

Show me how you do that. How do you prove that the Bible is true?
 
As an apostle, Paul had his authority “not from man, but from God”.

Then can you explain the following:

In Gal 1 and 2, he recounts that he went to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and the other leaders in Jerusalem, to submit his gospel so that he is not running in vain…so how come Paul still had to do this despite his authority is from God and not from man?

And how come, per Paul’s account in Gal 2, the revelation to him was to go to Jerusalem…not to go out on his own and establish his own religion?

And in Acts 13, he still is ordained and sent, prior to his first missionary journey?

Why did Paul still had to do this? Why did Paul, contrary to generally, protestant practice, not go out on his own?

And can you justify protestant practice of anyone claiming to start a church on their own, contrary to the example of St. Paul?
 
Mr coptic are you serious? I have never heard a christian question if the bible was true…if you are curious I will give you my E mail.
Well this is great we can now agree that there is some tradition. I am very excited!
Could someone give me a list of the traditions that are not in the bible but are passed down from Peter or the apostles from the first century.
It would be fullfiilling to have the complete truth than half of the story!
 
Mr coptic are you serious? I have never heard a christian question if the bible was true…if you are curious I will give you my E mail.
Well this is great we can now agree that there is some tradition. I am very excited!
Could someone give me a list of the traditions that are not in the bible but are passed down from Peter or the apostles from the first century.
It would be fullfiilling to have the complete truth than half of the story!
Happy,

I would love to send you my private email. We could discuss, agree, disagree, you could teach me, I would learn and that would be selfish of me.

Did you know that there are over 4000 others viewing this thread? I would imagine that you would understand how altruistic it would be to share your thoughts.

I of course have never had anyone prove to me without doubt that the Bible is true. Now, you do know that I believe that, however that is because I am in the confines of the OHCAC. Now if you can show me and others beyond the shadow of doubt that the Bible is true as you say, then maybe I can rethink my position.

So, Happy…share what you know so that I and 4000 others may learn…🙂
 
English,

I spent years in Protestant Churches, Protestant Bible Studies, Talking to Protestant Pastors, studying Protestant thinking, spending time with many Catholics that were former Protestants, spoke with Jimmy Akins, former Protestant on the Phone many times while he was at Catholic Answers…listening to Protestants trying to convert me with this same old stuff that makes no sense:nunchuk:…this did not happen suddenly. :nope:
Sadly then why did you answer as you did because then you will know for a fact that protestants do not follow the Bible aloan and quote all that you did. Is misrepresentation of the faith just because you did not like it 😦
 
To answer my point of Paul was addressing timothy, what was he addressing? The text does not support WHY he told timothy this.

Paul was advising Timothy…for Timothy’s ministry and how to be a good bishop and steward of the Church Paul left Timothy in charge of.
As for the topic of can I prove the scriptures as infallible? No I cannot…if I could then atheism would be a distant memory
 
Mr coptic are you serious? I have never heard a christian question if the bible was true…if you are curious I will give you my E mail.
Well this is great we can now agree that there is some tradition. I am very excited!

Could someone give me a list of the traditions that are not in the bible but are passed down from Peter or the apostles from the first century.
It would be fullfiilling to have the complete truth than half of the story!
I do not think there is such a list…but the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church is contained in its common life, common teaching and common worship…mark-shea.com/tradition.html
acred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. *
 
Sadly then why did you answer as you did because then you will know for a fact that protestants do not follow the **Bible aloan **and quote all that you did. Is misrepresentation of the faith just because you did not like it 😦
Rose,

What is it you are trying to say? Bible aloan? Bible Alone?

You make a statement. I don’t understand it. Then you conclude that I did not like it. Have I explained to you why I could not accept Protestant thought? Likes and dislikes have little to do with forming a decsion. This may be true for you. You cannot assume it is true for others.
 
sorry if you cannot cope with minor typing errors and not able to piece it together just because you are not happy with me as in what I say. That speaks volumes about you to be honest.

Alone is what I meant and got it mixed up - sorry.

But just because you are not happy about what you have perceived to been its stance doesn’t give you the right to slander it. Early on you were crictical about protestants only following the Bible gving the impression its man made or something… and yet you have only sampled one tiny portion of protestants to have provided an indepth answer as you did. It would have been fine if you had added something along the lines of in your opinion… but not to just make a sweeping statement lumping all protestants together believing we follow the bible alone.

I could challenge you to walk into a High Anglo Catholic Church which is protestant and based on what you see and hear and parttake in you wouldn’t actually know whether it was High Anglo or Roman Catholic. The information on the board tells you that but thats all unless you were a regular worshipper. Who is prayed for on the intercessions might give it away to you if you were really paying attention. So to claim that all protestants by from what you experience follow the Bible alone and that its all man made etc is an unfair judgemental comment that if I had said that about you guys then you would be instantly up in arms that I don’t know anything because am not Roman Catholic. You are not protestant from what you say and didn’t like them so your answer would be very biased to your limited experience rather than honest.
peace be with you friend and hope you sleep well 😃
 
sorry if you cannot cope with minor typing errors and not able to piece it together just because you are not happy with me as in what I say. That speaks volumes about you to be honest.

Alone is what I meant and got it mixed up - sorry.

But just because you are not happy about what you have perceived to been its stance doesn’t give you the right to slander it. Early on you were crictical about protestants only following the Bible gving the impression its man made or something… and yet you have only sampled one tiny portion of protestants to have provided an indepth answer as you did. It would have been fine if you had added something along the lines of in your opinion… but not to just make a sweeping statement lumping all protestants together believing we follow the bible alone.

I could challenge you to walk into a High Anglo Catholic Church which is protestant and based on what you see and hear and parttake in you wouldn’t actually know whether it was High Anglo or Roman Catholic. The information on the board tells you that but thats all unless you were a regular worshipper. Who is prayed for on the intercessions might give it away to you if you were really paying attention. So to claim that all protestants by from what you experience follow the Bible alone and that its all man made etc is an unfair judgemental comment that if I had said that about you guys then you would be instantly up in arms that I don’t know anything because am not Roman Catholic. You are not protestant from what you say and didn’t like them so your answer would be very biased to your limited experience rather than honest.
peace be with you friend and hope you sleep well 😃
English,

My education is in Anglican, Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, non-denominational, community based, Evangelical and others…cannot recall. You formulate your generalities on what you think and believe and then register what I like and dislike. I suppose you could assume that.🤷

I find Protestant thought disjointed, unacceptable and not meeting the standards of Alfred Korzybski.🙂
 
peace be with you friend for you seem unhappy.

Whatever you are educated in, you are Roman Catholic by your title on the board. If I had answered as you had done in a RC thread you be quick to point out to me that am not that ilk so don’t know. That is my point. Yet you claim here to know everything and so gives you the authority to state what you did rather than present it as an opinion. This is what is my problem. Fine = okay if you don’t like protestants for whavever reason. But to slander protestants because you think you have the authority to be able to do isn’t really a clever way forward. Protestants do no follow the Bible alone but God is at the centre of their lives - our lives. Whether you agree or disagree fine so long as its clear its your opinon and actually you have no more authority to say so or not than anyone else at all. God is at centre of every Christian life whether Protestant, Catholic or any other denomination. We mayn’t agree with their methods and their policies mayn’t work for us as individuals but to give authority over an answer that is not right - isn’t right. Protestants are Christian and just do things different that is all but God is at the centre and use the Bible just like you guys do - hoping I am not wrong in assuming you guys use the Bible in your lives? And nope we probably don’t meet that guy whoever he is as never heard of him before but we do meet God and read the Bible and use the Bible but its not the Bible alone in our lives but guidence through God and with God and God is centre of our lives not some chappy with a foreign sounding name 🙂 no offence meant at all but can’t remember the name you said thats just me. The Queen with Archbishops looks after the Church of England and the Bishops and Priests looks after us within the Church of England. We are not controlled but work with God with guidence of the Church and the Bible. And worship God at church etc.:o
I like it disjointed because with guidence it helps me worship God as a free human individual and not made to do anything because of whatever. I seek guidence and can say yeh or neigh in a friendly way and it allows me to be a committed worshipper of the church and if I find something hard etc the priest is there supporting me and finding an altertnative way around it but in line with church of england teachings etc. I can’t deal with the dogma to it all and would geuniely find Roman Catholic too full of rules etc if was to follow it closely. I am not meaning to be disrepectful here just honest.
But it dont mean we are any less God centred than any other Christian denomination. Its not the bible alone. but the Bible is apart of the whole package…:)👍
 
peace be with you friend for you seem unhappy.

Whatever you are educated in, you are Roman Catholic by your title on the board. If I had answered as you had done in a RC thread you be quick to point out to me that am not that ilk so don’t know. That is my point. Yet you claim here to know everything and so gives you the authority to state what you did rather than present it as an opinion. This is what is my problem. Fine = okay if you don’t like protestants for whavever reason. But to slander protestants because you think you have the authority to be able to do isn’t really a clever way forward. Protestants do no follow the Bible alone but God is at the centre of their lives - our lives. Whether you agree or disagree fine so long as its clear its your opinon and actually you have no more authority to say so or not than anyone else at all. God is at centre of every Christian life whether Protestant, Catholic or any other denomination. We mayn’t agree with their methods and their policies mayn’t work for us as individuals but to give authority over an answer that is not right - isn’t right. Protestants are Christian and just do things different that is all but God is at the centre and use the Bible just like you guys do - hoping I am not wrong in assuming you guys use the Bible in your lives? And nope we probably don’t meet that guy whoever he is as never heard of him before but we do meet God and read the Bible and use the Bible but its not the Bible alone in our lives but guidence through God and with God and God is centre of our lives not some chappy with a foreign sounding name 🙂 no offence meant at all but can’t remember the name you said thats just me. The Queen with Archbishops looks after the Church of England and the Bishops and Priests looks after us within the Church of England. We are not controlled but work with God with guidence of the Church and the Bible. And worship God at church etc.:o
I like it disjointed because with guidence it helps me worship God as a free human individual and not made to do anything because of whatever. I seek guidence and can say yeh or neigh in a friendly way and it allows me to be a committed worshipper of the church and if I find something hard etc the priest is there supporting me and finding an altertnative way around it but in line with church of england teachings etc. I can’t deal with the dogma to it all and would geuniely find Roman Catholic too full of rules etc if was to follow it closely. I am not meaning to be disrepectful here just honest.
But it dont mean we are any less God centred than any other Christian denomination. Its not the bible alone. but the Bible is apart of the whole package…:)👍
Rose,

Hast thou realized that this thread hast ast its title…“Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone”?

Shouldst thou thinkest perhapst thou speaketh for only thyself and thouist experienst in thy Anglican Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top