Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

[Erich]

Is seems true that the office of bishop grew out of presbyter.

Actually, first came the apostles (whose successors are the bishops), then deacons (see Acts 6:1-4), then priests (presbyters).

Wait. Where did the scriptures show Apostolic Succession, in the sense that you say here? There seems to be some missing steps.

Not sure what you are talking about here.

Did you read By What Authority? (the link I referenced earlier) in its entirety? That would clear up a lot.

No mention here that all bishops are appointed by the Bishop of Rome.

The Bishop of Rome, however, doesn’t make these appointments in a vacuum. From this link:

The ultimate decision in appointing bishops rests with the pope, and he is free to select anyone he chooses. But how does he know whom to select?..

Stage 1: Bishops’ Recommendations Every bishop may submit to the archbishop of his province the names of priests he thinks would make good bishops…

Stage 2: The Apostolic Nuncio By overseeing the final list of names forwarded to Rome, the apostolic nuncio plays a decisive role in the selection process…

Stage 3: Congregation for Bishops Once all the documentation from the nuncio is complete and in order, and the prefect approves, the process moves forward…

Stage 4: The Pope Decides At a private audience with the pope, usually on a Saturday, the prefect of the Congregation for Bishops presents the recommendations of the Congregation to the Holy Father. A few days later, the pope informs the Congregation of his decision…

 

[Prosmith]

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

Is it your point that ALL Protestants are sola scriptura?? You would be incorrect if you assume that.

 

[happy_88]

I am a Messianic Jew, and with a clear mind I can say that Protestants do not follow sola scriptura.
I have no denominational influence and I can say with a non critical mind that NO denomination really follows the bible alone.
They may think that they do, but as time marches on a church body turns answers to tough questions as tradition.
lets look at the more broad aspects of this…the creation of Genesis. Most protestants believe that the world was created in 6 days and is only 6000 years old…while the evidence is otherwise, a person with that preconcieved notion, can only read the bible in that context…even if the bible was not written to answer the precise question. It also was not written to support or refute an old earth either.
Lets look at the mindset of the flood…in a defense of tradition most people read the flood account of Genesis as a world wide global flood… and are very defensive if someone looks at this differently than this. Did Moses intend for his audience to read this as a worldwide flood, probably not…but we have to take the traditional glasses off to read the bible and let it reveal the words to us…instead of letting our private interpretation be forced into the text.
I have probably stirred up some traditional biases towards my posting, but this is the point, we like the pharisees of old can only see the scripture in a certain light that blinds us
A good example of this would be the Adventists, they criticize the catholic church and believe that the Catholic church is led by Satan (and protestants) and criticize the Pope for his unscriptural ways. Well, this is the pot calling the kettle black, with their Prophetess Ellen White they have created their own Pope who is above the Bible, and have created many unbiblical traditions, even openly contradicting the Bible!
But claim that they are sola scriptura…if the protestants,Adventists…etc., are sola scriptura, so then are the Jehovah’s witnesses. We all take a point out of the bible and force our own interpretation into the text…instead of letting the text reveal itself in light of other texts.
This is how the JW’s can read the bible in light that Jesus was not a divine God and was the archangel Michael. The traditional glasses are secured tightly and even if the evidence is overwhelming their minds will not accept this.
Jesus’s ministry is a good example of this…He had the religous establishment turned on its head…He proved them all wrong…even the disciples to the very end had a different preconcieved notion in their minds

My 2 cents
Naomi

 

[JonNC]

=happy 88;9581428]I am a Messianic Jew, and with a clear mind I can say that Protestants do not follow sola scriptura.
I have no denominational influence and I can say with a non critical mind that NO denomination really follows the bible alone. They may think that they do, but as time marches on a church body turns answers to tough questions as tradition.

Properly understood, sola scriptura does rely on Tradition. As an example, I offer the doctrine of the real presence in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Melanchthon writes:

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

First he confirms the doctrine by scripture. He then defends the doctrine using the teachings of the Church, both east and west, and by quoting the Early Church Fathers.
This is how the practice of sola scriptura works. And clearly, Lutherans practice sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[happy_88]

Sola scriptura does not rely on the church fathers. It relies on the bible alone…letting the bible interpret itself void of private interpretations.
Some church fathers had varied opinions unique to only themselves…like that john was not the author of revelation, or that Jesus was 50 years old when he died, and that His ministry from the time of baptism was 15 years.
To use the fathers as sola scriptura is no different than using billy graham,hal lindsey or ellen white.
I am not using this as an attack or saying that a particular group is sola scriptura over another, just that sola scritura is the bible alone…not dependant on the 2nd century or 18th century

 

[JonNC]

Sola scriptura does not rely on the church fathers. It relies on the bible alone…letting the bible interpret itself void of private interpretations.
Some church fathers had varied opinions unique to only themselves…like that john was not the author of revelation, or that Jesus was 50 years old when he died, and that His ministry from the time of baptism was 15 years.
To use the fathers as sola scriptura is no different than using billy graham,hal lindsey or ellen white.
I am not using this as an attack or saying that a particular group is sola scriptura over another, just that sola scritura is the bible alone…not dependant on the 2nd century or 18th century

bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php

I am willing to say that those who don’t use the Church Fathers and early councils miss out on a great deal of the faith of the Church.

Jon

 

[andrewstx]

Jonnc and Happy seem to be approaching sola scriptura from different angles. Jon is using the classical Lutheran defintion, while Happy is using a more general definition.

Personally I was raised sort of in a very solo scriptura denomination, the one calling it’self “the churches of Christ”. They are so solo scriptura that any practice or use not speciffically ordered in the bible and explicitly is forbidden. They have no organs in their churches because the bible does not demand their usse, same gos for candles, flowers, stained glass etc.

But they apply this principle only in specific instances and ignore others, for example the bible does not command hymnals(which they call “song books”). Pitch pipes opr tuning forksare used freely.

I really think they look at Catholic beleif and practice and do the opposite, from predjudice.

But they are not really solo scriptura, they have certain ideas they must subscribe to or they find themselves “disfellowshipped” from THE church.

 

[CopticChristian]

:clapping:

I am a Messianic Jew, and with a clear mind I can say that Protestants do not follow sola scriptura.
I have no denominational influence and I can say with a non critical mind that NO denomination really follows the bible alone.
They may think that they do, but as time marches on a church body turns answers to tough questions as tradition.
lets look at the more broad aspects of this…the creation of Genesis. Most protestants believe that the world was created in 6 days and is only 6000 years old…while the evidence is otherwise, a person with that preconcieved notion, can only read the bible in that context…even if the bible was not written to answer the precise question. It also was not written to support or refute an old earth either.
Lets look at the mindset of the flood…in a defense of tradition most people read the flood account of Genesis as a world wide global flood… and are very defensive if someone looks at this differently than this. Did Moses intend for his audience to read this as a worldwide flood, probably not…but we have to take the traditional glasses off to read the bible and let it reveal the words to us…instead of letting our private interpretation be forced into the text.
I have probably stirred up some traditional biases towards my posting, but this is the point, we like the pharisees of old can only see the scripture in a certain light that blinds us
A good example of this would be the Adventists, they criticize the catholic church and believe that the Catholic church is led by Satan (and protestants) and criticize the Pope for his unscriptural ways. Well, this is the pot calling the kettle black, with their Prophetess Ellen White they have created their own Pope who is above the Bible, and have created many unbiblical traditions, even openly contradicting the Bible!
But claim that they are sola scriptura…if the protestants,Adventists…etc., are sola scriptura, so then are the Jehovah’s witnesses. We all take a point out of the bible and force our own interpretation into the text…instead of letting the text reveal itself in light of other texts.
This is how the JW’s can read the bible in light that Jesus was not a divine God and was the archangel Michael. The traditional glasses are secured tightly and even if the evidence is overwhelming their minds will not accept this.
Jesus’s ministry is a good example of this…He had the religous establishment turned on its head…He proved them all wrong…even the disciples to the very end had a different preconcieved notion in their minds

My 2 cents
Naomi

Happy,

If you are happy and you know it clap your hands:clapping:

I beg to differ with you. You are a Jew that has accepted Protestant thought in some form or another. Where do you believe that the Bible came from? From some Protestant Church? Where is the Protestant Church?

Denominations are Protestant and your thought is of Protestant origin and therefore is influenced denominationally.

Read your Bible…

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,

Where do you find anyone in the first 1000 years claiming to be a Messianic Jew…all Christians were Jew, Gentiles, Greek, Barbarians…all one in Christ Jesus…

You are Protestant. There is no such thing as a Messianic Jew except in Protestant thought…

my 10 cents…:twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents:

 

[happy_88]

Coptic Christian…

If you are happy and you know it clap your hands

I really do not know what this above statement means, but if I was to go from the rest of your reply, I would probably think that it was an intentional dig towards me.

I beg to differ with you. You are a Jew that has accepted Protestant thought in some form or another.

I beg to differ with you, I am a Jew who has accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament and revealed in the New Testament.

Where do you believe that the Bible came from?

This could be a long complicated answer to the question spanning 2500 years, but I think you mean the New Testament. First century Christians from a Jewish background written mostly by Jews and a few Gentile converts.

Denominations are Protestant and your thought is of Protestant origin and therefore is influenced denominationally.

My thought is of Protestant origin???..are you really reading my previous post?? I would have had lots of protestants pulling out their hair over the words I wrote. My origins if you would read in my post is not Protestant.

**Read your Bible…

Quote:
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, **

Firstly, I hope that you read your Bible a little closer than you read my post!
Secondly, I think that you have read something into my post that just is not there at all…I will take a stab at what might be prompting you to go on the attack…dispensationism???

This is easy…there are no 2 plans for salvation, just one and that is by Jesus Christ…no Jew,no Gentile,no Greek, no slave or free! God is not a racist!

Where do you find anyone in the first 1000 years claiming to be a Messianic Jew…all Christians were Jew, Gentiles, Greek, Barbarians…all one in Christ Jesus…

I never looked for for anyone calling themselves a Messianic Jew in the first 1000 years…the thought never occured to me! I know that Jews in the first century kept lots of the customs and even went to the temple in the first century. When the temple was destroyed in AD 70 Judaism was never able to be literally practiced and is only a shadow of what it was!
I know a woman who works with my Husband who refers to herself as a Muslim who now imbraces the Jewish Messiah.
While the Messiah came for all mankind…I know where she is coming from.
If “messianic Jew” bothers you I can just call myself christian…no problem! My English might be technically wrong in this label, and instead of denomination I can use the word church…even though the topic at hand was “do protestants really follow the bible alone”

**You are Protestant. There is no such thing as a Messianic Jew except in Protestant thought…
**

Again, I am not Protestant, this is something you are going to have to deal with!
I will use the same reasoning and logic as you …I think that you are a closet atheist, now put your flippers together and clap!

Protestantism has a very wide range of theologies…some I agree with, and some have very serious problems!

For example they have a wide view on end times eschatology.
1.Dispensationism
aost tribulation rapture
b.Pre tribulation rapture
c.Tribulation rapture
2 Historicism
3.Premillenialism
4.Postmillennialism
5.Amillennialism
6.Preterism

Maybe you would like to tell me which one of these I adhere to? I find that the first four are on shaky ground, 5 and 6 are more accurate, but all of them have problems. So I adhere strictly to none of the above…

Naomi

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic Christian…

If you are happy and you know it clap your hands

I really do not know what this above statement means, but if I was to go from the rest of your reply, I would probably think that it was an intentional dig towards me.

I beg to differ with you. You are a Jew that has accepted Protestant thought in some form or another.

I beg to differ with you, I am a Jew who has accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament and revealed in the New Testament.

Where do you believe that the Bible came from?

This could be a long complicated answer to the question spanning 2500 years, but I think you mean the New Testament. First century Christians from a Jewish background written mostly by Jews and a few Gentile converts.

Denominations are Protestant and your thought is of Protestant origin and therefore is influenced denominationally.

My thought is of Protestant origin???..are you really reading my previous post?? I would have had lots of protestants pulling out their hair over the words I wrote. My origins if you would read in my post is not Protestant.

**Read your Bible…

Quote:
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, **

Firstly, I hope that you read your Bible a little closer than you read my post!
Secondly, I think that you have read something into my post that just is not there at all…I will take a stab at what might be prompting you to go on the attack…dispensationism???

This is easy…there are no 2 plans for salvation, just one and that is by Jesus Christ…no Jew,no Gentile,no Greek, no slave or free! God is not a racist!

Where do you find anyone in the first 1000 years claiming to be a Messianic Jew…all Christians were Jew, Gentiles, Greek, Barbarians…all one in Christ Jesus…

I never looked for for anyone calling themselves a Messianic Jew in the first 1000 years…the thought never occured to me! I know that Jews in the first century kept lots of the customs and even went to the temple in the first century. When the temple was destroyed in AD 70 Judaism was never able to be literally practiced and is only a shadow of what it was!
I know a woman who works with my Husband who refers to herself as a Muslim who now imbraces the Jewish Messiah.
While the Messiah came for all mankind…I know where she is coming from.
If “messianic Jew” bothers you I can just call myself christian…no problem! My English might be technically wrong in this label, and instead of denomination I can use the word church…even though the topic at hand was “do protestants really follow the bible alone”

**You are Protestant. There is no such thing as a Messianic Jew except in Protestant thought…
**

Again, I am not Protestant, this is something you are going to have to deal with!
I will use the same reasoning and logic as you …I think that you are a closet atheist, now put your flippers together and clap!

Protestantism has a very wide range of theologies…some I agree with, and some have very serious problems!

For example they have a wide view on end times eschatology.
1.Dispensationism
aost tribulation rapture
b.Pre tribulation rapture
c.Tribulation rapture
2 Historicism
3.Premillenialism
4.Postmillennialism
5.Amillennialism
6.Preterism

Maybe you would like to tell me which one of these I adhere to? I find that the first four are on shaky ground, 5 and 6 are more accurate, but all of them have problems. So I adhere strictly to none of the above…

Naomi

Naomi,

Do you believe that the Bible is the sole rule of Faith?

 

[Porknpie]

Sola scriptura does not rely on the church fathers. It relies on the bible alone…letting the bible interpret itself void of private interpretations.
Some church fathers had varied opinions unique to only themselves…like that john was not the author of revelation, or that Jesus was 50 years old when he died, and that His ministry from the time of baptism was 15 years.
To use the fathers as sola scriptura is no different than using billy graham,hal lindsey or ellen white.
I am not using this as an attack or saying that a particular group is sola scriptura over another, just that sola scritura is the bible alone…not dependant on the 2nd century or 18th century

Happy, we can agree that the NT canon of scripture is the infallible word of God and that you have fewer books than the Catholic church. But, why did the church develop the canon of scripture, the NT bible?

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic Christian…

If you are happy and you know it clap your hands

I really do not know what this above statement means, but if I was to go from the rest of your reply, I would probably think that it was an intentional dig towards me.

I beg to differ with you. You are a Jew that has accepted Protestant thought in some form or another.

I beg to differ with you, I am a Jew who has accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament and revealed in the New Testament.

Where do you believe that the Bible came from?

This could be a long complicated answer to the question spanning 2500 years, but I think you mean the New Testament. First century Christians from a Jewish background written mostly by Jews and a few Gentile converts.

Denominations are Protestant and your thought is of Protestant origin and therefore is influenced denominationally.

My thought is of Protestant origin???..are you really reading my previous post?? I would have had lots of protestants pulling out their hair over the words I wrote. My origins if you would read in my post is not Protestant.

**Read your Bible…

Quote:
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, **

Firstly, I hope that you read your Bible a little closer than you read my post!
Secondly, I think that you have read something into my post that just is not there at all…I will take a stab at what might be prompting you to go on the attack…dispensationism???

This is easy…there are no 2 plans for salvation, just one and that is by Jesus Christ…no Jew,no Gentile,no Greek, no slave or free! God is not a racist!

Where do you find anyone in the first 1000 years claiming to be a Messianic Jew…all Christians were Jew, Gentiles, Greek, Barbarians…all one in Christ Jesus…

I never looked for for anyone calling themselves a Messianic Jew in the first 1000 years…the thought never occured to me! I know that Jews in the first century kept lots of the customs and even went to the temple in the first century. When the temple was destroyed in AD 70 Judaism was never able to be literally practiced and is only a shadow of what it was!
I know a woman who works with my Husband who refers to herself as a Muslim who now imbraces the Jewish Messiah.
While the Messiah came for all mankind…I know where she is coming from.
If “messianic Jew” bothers you I can just call myself christian…no problem! My English might be technically wrong in this label, and instead of denomination I can use the word church…even though the topic at hand was “do protestants really follow the bible alone”

**You are Protestant. There is no such thing as a Messianic Jew except in Protestant thought…
**

Again, I am not Protestant, this is something you are going to have to deal with!
I will use the same reasoning and logic as you …I think that you are a closet atheist, now put your flippers together and clap!

Protestantism has a very wide range of theologies…some I agree with, and some have very serious problems!

For example they have a wide view on end times eschatology.
1.Dispensationism
aost tribulation rapture
b.Pre tribulation rapture
c.Tribulation rapture
2 Historicism
3.Premillenialism
4.Postmillennialism
5.Amillennialism
6.Preterism

Maybe you would like to tell me which one of these I adhere to? I find that the first four are on shaky ground, 5 and 6 are more accurate, but all of them have problems. So I adhere strictly to none of the above…

Naomi

Naomi,

This is what you posted elsewhere.

**Sola scriptura **does not rely on the church fathers. It **relies on the bible alone…****letting the bible interpret itself **void of private interpretations.
Some church fathers had varied opinions unique to only themselves…like that john was not the author of revelation, or that Jesus was 50 years old when he died, and that His ministry from the time of baptism was 15 years.
To use the fathers as sola scriptura is no different than using billy graham,hal lindsey or ellen white.
I am not using this as an attack or saying that a particular group is **sola scriptura **over another, just that **sola scritura is the bible alone…**not dependant on the 2nd century or 18th century

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?

 

[Nabooru]

I came across an interesting concept today. It would be better to describe the Protestant (or at least the Anglican) tradition as prima scriptura, rather than sola scriptura. That is, the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore should inform all that we practice. We judge what is right and proper in practice according to how well it is scripturally sound, rather than assuming that the authority of the pope is what defines practice and belief. Perhaps the sola title was just tacked on to fit in with the other solas.

 

[CopticChristian]

I came across an interesting concept today. It would be better to describe the Protestant (or at least the Anglican) tradition as prima scriptura, rather than sola scriptura. That is, the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore should inform all that we practice. **We judge what is right and proper in practice according to how well it is scripturally sound, rather than assuming that the authority of the pope is what defines practice and belief. **Perhaps the sola title was just tacked on to fit in with the other solas.

Nabooru,

Who is “We” in your paradigm?

The Pope is a Judge and not the magesterium per se. In the Catholic paradigm the Church is We with the Pope is a Judge as I understand it.

 

[happy_88]

Porknpie wrote
**Happy, we can agree that the NT canon of scripture is the infallible word of God and that
you have fewer books than the Catholic church. But, why did the church develop the canon of scripture, the NT bible? **

Sigh…what is the “you” in your post that you have fewer books in the bible than the Catholic church? I have many different bibles in my house. The The Jews have 24 books,Protestants have 39 books, Catholics 46 books and Eastern Orthodox have 51 books in the Old testament.
Armenian Orthodox have a 3rd Corinthians
Assyrian has 1 less John
Ethiopian Orthodox includes the book of Enoch

This is far from only a Catholic and Protestant world.
I do not understand the second question…

 

[CopticChristian]

Porknpie wrote
**Happy, we can agree that the NT canon of scripture is the infallible word of God and that
you have fewer books than the Catholic church. But, why did the church develop the canon of scripture, the NT bible? **

Sigh…what is the “you” in your post that you have fewer books in the bible than the Catholic church? I have many different bibles in my house. The The Jews have 24 books,Protestants have 39 books, Catholics 46 books and Eastern Orthodox have 51 books in the Old testament.
Armenian Orthodox have a 3rd Corinthians
Assyrian has 1 less John
Ethiopian Orthodox includes the book of Enoch

This is far from only a Catholic and Protestant world.
I do not understand the second question…

Happy,:extrahappy:

I note that you are just “Christian” now.:tiphat:

It is a good thing that you point out the differences in the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and OHCAC as it concerns the books. What you have pointed out is that the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox have larger canon and more books. The OHCAC has as you say 46 books.

You correctly point out that Protestants have a collection of 39 books.

There is no such thing as a Messianic Jew Canon or Christian Canon. Nevertheless I ask you to spend some time going through this thread to understand that it is true that the Protestants have fewer books and those fewer books is based on removal.

This is my posting on “Why Christians Can’t read Scripture”…since you now designate yourself as “Christian”…it is relevant…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=609262

Ask yourself this. What Church body took the 7 books out of the Bible? In other words as you have pointed out the greater amount of books is found in the east and the least amount of books is found in the West. Protestant thought is a Western Phenomenon and the question is how is it that the Protocanonicals or the Protestant Bible has fewer books than anyone else. Was it a Church? Was it a Synod? Was it a Synagogue? What authority on earth removed these books?:newidea:

 

[happy_88]

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_88]

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

 

[Porknpie]

Porknpie wrote
**Happy, we can agree that the NT canon of scripture is the infallible word of God and that
you have fewer books than the Catholic church. But, why did the church develop the canon of scripture, the NT bible? **

Sigh…what is the “you” in your post that you have fewer books in the bible than the Catholic church? I have many different bibles in my house. The The Jews have 24 books,Protestants have 39 books, Catholics 46 books and Eastern Orthodox have 51 books in the Old testament.
Armenian Orthodox have a 3rd Corinthians
Assyrian has 1 less John
Ethiopian Orthodox includes the book of Enoch

This is far from only a Catholic and Protestant world.
I do not understand the second question…

Happy, thank you for your reply. I understand that there are many different versions of the bible. What bible version(s) do you own…perhaps share which ones you read from the most.?

 

[IbnFiktur]

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.