Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

[CopticChristian]

Eric, I hope that I did not offend you. I don’t think that my theology says to interpret the bible anyway anyone wants. Your knowledge of corinthians is bang on, my concern is that I felt that you were usmg this as ammo to anyone who disagrees with you and your church. **This has been used against me by another infallable church…the adventists.**My point with pauls words to timothy are that I don’t think we know the entire context of the conversation. As this could be used against him…again this has been pointed out by the adventists. So studying the context is crucial
Obviously the words of Paul do not line up with the OT, he preached agaimst the judaisers
Let’s work together…

Happy,

You have me concerned. You say that there is another infallible Church. Now I know our understanding of history is different, but the Bible says…NIV version 1Tim 3:14

14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Now if there is a Church that is the pillar and and foundation of truth…then this Church must be infallible…are you telling me that there is more than one Church that is the Pillar and foundation of Truth?

 

[happy_88]

Mr coptic, I don’t thinmk that they are infallible, they claim that they are infallible. So please ask a question before you criticise.when I stated that an organization has used something in the bible against me, this should not show support for them being infallible.

 

[CopticChristian]

Mr coptic, I don’t thinmk that they are infallible, they claim that they are infallible. So please ask a question before you criticise.when I stated that an organization has used something in the bible against me, this should not show support for them being infallible.

Happy,

**
This has been used against me by another infallable church…the adventists.**

This statement is different than this one…

**

This has been used against me by another church claiming infallability…the adventists.

**

You are criticizing me for your statement that I took at face value.

 

[happy_88]

Well, do they(adventists) not think and claim that they have an infallible massage sent by God? This has nothing to do with my outlook on history

Also, as pertaining to 2 timothy and Pauls address to timothy…it really is not that clear…not to repeat myself, but this verse does cause many questions.

Lets look at this a bit further…does the New Testament refer to itself as scripture?

Yes, it does. Paul quoted Luke10:7 as scripture
Peter refered to Pauls writings as scripture
Paul indicated before he wrote 2 timothy “by the word of God”
(1 Thessalonians 4:15) (Galatians 1:12)

Could Paul be mentioning the OT and The NT
He combined both OT and NT in one verse

1 Timothy 5:18 “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’”

Deuteronomy 25:4"You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain."

Luke 10:7"And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house."

Paul placed the Gospel of Luke in the same light as Moses

Lets look at another
2 Peter 3:15-16 “And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the OTHER Scriptures.”

The point that Peter is making is that false teachers twist Pauls letters as they have done with other scripture…Peter is claiming them as scripture.
Although peter validated Pauls writings he was far from having the concept of a full blown NT Cannon

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Yep, Coptic, I know that. The problem is the guys in the big hats in Rome don’t agree with the guys in the big hats other places.

Jon

The problem with that logic is that the guys with the big hats in Rome were given the knowledge of Jesus Christ directly from Jesus Christ through His Apostles and their unbroken line of discipleship. The guys with the big hats in other places have neither the ability to preach full truth, or the authority to do so. Christ created “one” earthly organization of big hats to carry on His legacy and to bring to the world. And that would be the big hats of Rome Everyone else is doing their own work and saying it is for God. But it is not God’s work. God created one Church and wants ALL His children to belong in it where they can receive Him validly in the Sacraments (especially the Eucharist).

 

[happy_88]

I would like to address the problem with tradition…and being infallible.

If we read the scripture and the history of Israel, the use of scripture combined with tradition was a real dilema.
I think the problem is that the Catholic Church is in the same situation as the Jews.
The oral tradition or Law was so synthesized to the written Torah, that judging the validity of the 2 of them became an impossibility in light of each other. Both of them were assumed to have originated with Moses
How does the Catholic Church judge the unwritten oral tradition to the written New Testament?
Does not the orthodox Church also claim apostolic succession? Which one is right ? Based on what evidence?
lets look at the prophesy of matt. 2:23 That Jesus would be called a Nazarene.

Did this not come directly from scripture?
Did Mathew find this from oral tradition?
What was the traditional interpretation of this by the church fathers?

This is what Jerome taught about it…He says that it came from Isa. 11:1
Jerome, Letter 47:7
Once more it is written in the pages of the same evangelist, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” Let these word fanciers and nice critics of all composition tell us where they have read the words; and if they cannot, let me tell them that they are in Isaiah. For in the place where we read and translate, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,” in the Hebrew idiom it is written thus, “There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root.” "

Does this not contradict the traditional interpretation of the Fathers? Does this not violate the very principle of oral tradition?
Who is right or wrong? The Bible? Jerome?
Did Jerome declare it an oral tradition or from the scripture? what did Jerome call these men who did not think it was in the bible?
Now who trumps who…
Lets look at the other oral traditions…
The seat of Moses is nowhere to be found and is an oral tradition passed down…
The seat of Moses is revealed in Exodus 18:13 (to 27) This is the seat of Judgement and Jesus stated that the scribes and pharisees also sat on Moses seat Matt. 23:2-3. Both these verses are a direct parallel to each other…no oral tradition

 

[JonNC]

The problem with that logic is that the guys with the big hats in Rome were given the knowledge of Jesus Christ directly from Jesus Christ through His Apostles and their unbroken line of discipleship. The guys with the big hats in other places have neither the ability to preach full truth, or the authority to do so. Christ created “one” earthly organization of big hats to carry on His legacy and to bring to the world. And that would be the big hats of Rome Everyone else is doing their own work and saying it is for God. But it is not God’s work. God created one Church and wants ALL His children to belong in it where they can receive Him validly in the Sacraments (especially the Eucharist).

Do not the others have an unbroken line of discipleship - Antioch, Constantinople, etc?

Jon

 

[White_Peony]

…and Seventh-day Adventist follow Ellen White’s writings.

A lot of them follow other writers, claiming that they use a lot of Scripture in their writings. But I have met Adventists who refuse to believe what Ellen White wrote if it’s not in the Bible.

Protestants do not follow the Bible alone anyhow because I have still yet to find where “Sola Scriptura” is in the Bible!

 

[JonNC]

…and Seventh-day Adventist follow Ellen White’s writings.

A lot of them follow other writers, claiming that they use a lot of Scripture in their writings. But I have met Adventists who refuse to believe what Ellen White wrote if it’s not in the Bible.

Protestants do not follow the Bible alone anyhow because I have still yet to find where “Sola Scriptura” is in the Bible!

There are lots of things we do that are “not in the Bible”. If sola scriptura was, it would be a doctrine. And that’s the point of SS - determining doctrine.

Jon

 

[birdrock]

And what are the essentials?

As Jimmy Akin put it, …]

Going a bit further, Mr. Akin’s passage is summarized as follows:

The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.

Not trying to make too little of it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but what I’m getting from that is that Mr. Akin says that the fundamental difference between the Catholic church and protestant churches is that (1) each has different guys in charge, and (2) a different source of authority.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, do they(adventists) not think and claim that they have an infallible massage sent by God? This has nothing to do with my outlook on history

Also, as pertaining to 2 timothy and Pauls address to timothy…it really is not that clear…not to repeat myself, but this verse does cause many questions.

Lets look at this a bit further…does the New Testament refer to itself as scripture?

Yes, it does. Paul quoted Luke10:7 as scripture
Peter refered to Pauls writings as scripture
Paul indicated before he wrote 2 timothy “by the word of God”
(1 Thessalonians 4:15) (Galatians 1:12)

Could Paul be mentioning the OT and The NT
He combined both OT and NT in one verse

1 Timothy 5:18 “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’”

Deuteronomy 25:4"You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain."

Luke 10:7"And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house."

Paul placed the Gospel of Luke in the same light as Moses

Lets look at another
2 Peter 3:15-16 “And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the OTHER Scriptures.”

The point that Peter is making is that false teachers twist Pauls letters as they have done with other scripture…Peter is claiming them as scripture.
Although peter validated Pauls writings he was far from having the concept of a full blown NT Cannon

Happy,

And so it goes. I point out that 2Timothy 3:16 does not validate the NT and you look somewhere else to validate your belief.

If Peter Validated Paul, then who validated Mark? Who validated Hebrews as Paul.

You need to focus on one thing at a time.

2Timothy 3:16 does not validate the NT.

 

[CopticChristian]

I would like to address the problem with tradition…and being infallible.

If we read the scripture and the history of Israel, the use of scripture combined with tradition was a real dilema.
I think the problem is that the Catholic Church is in the same situation as the Jews.
The oral tradition or Law was so synthesized to the written Torah, that judging the validity of the 2 of them became an impossibility in light of each other. Both of them were assumed to have originated with Moses
How does the Catholic Church judge the unwritten oral tradition to the written New Testament?
Does not the orthodox Church also claim apostolic succession? Which one is right ? Based on what evidence?
lets look at the prophesy of matt. 2:23 That Jesus would be called a Nazarene.

Did this not come directly from scripture?
Did Mathew find this from oral tradition?
What was the traditional interpretation of this by the church fathers?

This is what Jerome taught about it…He says that it came from Isa. 11:1
Jerome, Letter 47:7
Once more it is written in the pages of the same evangelist, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” Let these word fanciers and nice critics of all composition tell us where they have read the words; and if they cannot, let me tell them that they are in Isaiah. For in the place where we read and translate, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,” in the Hebrew idiom it is written thus, “There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root.” "

Does this not contradict the traditional interpretation of the Fathers? Does this not violate the very principle of oral tradition?
Who is right or wrong? The Bible? Jerome?
Did Jerome declare it an oral tradition or from the scripture? what did Jerome call these men who did not think it was in the bible?
Now who trumps who…
Lets look at the other oral traditions…
The seat of Moses is nowhere to be found and is an oral tradition passed down…
The seat of Moses is revealed in Exodus 18:13 (to 27) This is the seat of Judgement and Jesus stated that the scribes and pharisees also sat on Moses seat Matt. 23:2-3. Both these verses are a direct parallel to each other…no oral tradition

Happy,

So rather than address the reality that you cannot prove that the Bible is Scripture, you attack oral Tradition with Protestant Oral Tradition using Bible verses, with a Bible that you cannot validate as Scripture.

 

[Erich]

I don’t think that my theology says to interpret the bible anyway anyone wants.

Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to “faith and practice”) must be able to be derived from Scripture alone.

An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) any binding authority. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority.

A necessarily corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone—or everyone—else says. If anyone or even everyone else together could tell the believer what to believe, Scripture would not be his sole authority; something else would have binding authority. Thus, according to sola scriptura, any role Tradition, a Magisterium, Bible commentaries, or anything else may play in theology is simply to suggest interpretations and evidence to the believer as he makes his decision. Each individual Christian is thus put in the position of being his own theologian.

So, even if it only does so implicitly, your theology does say each individual can interpret the bible any way he or she wants.

Eric, I hope that I did not offend you.

You did not offend.

But, I am still waiting for answers to the following questions:

Here are some more questions I am willing to bet most people have not taken the time to study/think through:

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

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

Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no?

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

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

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

In your particular denomination, can two walk together if they are not in agreement? Yes or no?

I suspect you haven’t tried to answer them because you can’t – at least, not without contradicting yourself.

Don’t worry, you’re not alone. Most Protestants would have trouble answering these questions.

 

[CopticChristian]

I would like to address the problem with tradition…and being infallible.

If we read the scripture and the history of Israel, the use of scripture combined with tradition was a real dilema.
I think the problem is that the Catholic Church is in the same situation as the Jews.
The oral tradition or Law was so synthesized to the written Torah, that judging the validity of the 2 of them became an impossibility in light of each other. Both of them were assumed to have originated with Moses
How does the Catholic Church judge the unwritten oral tradition to the written New Testament?
Does not the orthodox Church also claim apostolic succession? Which one is right ? Based on what evidence?
lets look at the prophesy of matt. 2:23 That Jesus would be called a Nazarene.

Did this not come directly from scripture?
Did Mathew find this from oral tradition?
What was the traditional interpretation of this by the church fathers?

This is what Jerome taught about it…He says that it came from Isa. 11:1
Jerome, Letter 47:7
Once more it is written in the pages of the same evangelist, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” Let these word fanciers and nice critics of all composition tell us where they have read the words; and if they cannot, let me tell them that they are in Isaiah. For in the place where we read and translate, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,” in the Hebrew idiom it is written thus, “There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root.” "

Does this not contradict the traditional interpretation of the Fathers? Does this not violate the very principle of oral tradition?
Who is right or wrong? The Bible? Jerome?
Did Jerome declare it an oral tradition or from the scripture? what did Jerome call these men who did not think it was in the bible?
Now who trumps who…
Lets look at the other oral traditions…
The seat of Moses is nowhere to be found and is an oral tradition passed down…
The seat of Moses is revealed in Exodus 18:13 (to 27) This is the seat of Judgement and Jesus stated that the scribes and pharisees also sat on Moses seat Matt. 23:2-3. Both these verses are a direct parallel to each other…no oral tradition

Happy,

One element of your argument that you should think of is that you are going outside of Scripture to prove your point, proving that you do not follow the Bible alone. The fact is that you don’t prove your point and that you have yet to answer Erich or my questions as to how you know what you call Scripture is Scripture. You failed to discuss the error of using 2 Timothy 3:16 as proving anything about the NT…

Recall Happy, that you started out by posting that you are “messianic Jew” and in reality that is Protestant thought pure and simple. I am not a fan of Wikipedia, however it is accurate in the assessment that the Messianic Protestant Jewish sect did not exist prior to 1600.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

Messianic Judaism is a syncretic[1] religious movement that arose in the 1960s and 70s.[9] It blends evangelical Christian theology with elements of religious Jewish practice and terminology.[14] Messianic Judaism generally holds that Jesus is both the Jewish Messiah and “God the Son” (one person of the Trinity),[18] though some within the movement do not hold to Trinitarian beliefs.[19] With few exceptions, both the Tanakh and the New Testament are believed to be authoritative and divinely inspired scripture.

You probably did not know that.

 

[Erich]

How does the Catholic Church judge the unwritten oral tradition to the written New Testament?

Actually, it was the written New Testament that, prior to being canonized as the New Testament, was judged to the unwritten oral tradition – not the other way around.

Here is a short (5:41) video that answers the question of what criteria the early Christians used to determine the canon of Scripture.

 

[englishredrose]

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

Even I can see that your answer can be applied to any faith you do not like

However more importantly, I find it odd that how we Anglicans cannot understand what it is like being Roman Catholic and therefore should not give answers

but suddenly Roman Catholics can give answers on such issues they know absolutely nothing about from personal experience. Only what they may have heard through loose hearsay and can therefore know all about protestants in their own mind yet know nothing to really be able to give a full well reasoned out answer.

If you never been Protestant then you won’t know if Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

The answer is off course we don’t Thats if you accept Anglicans as Protestants because this all really gets messy. God is at the centre of our lives. Not what the Church or Church Leaders tells us what to think, not just the Bible but the whole package. We listen to our priests and they guide us using the Bible but God is the absolute centre.We listen, prayer discerne, experience, make mistakes, get things wrong, learn and are closer to God every day for having the whole package but with God being the centre.

 

[happy_88]

Again I will repeat myself, I am trying to make the point that pauls words to timothy cannot refer to what we think he is saying. We do not know the other side of the conversation. If the OT is totally good for correction, then Pauls own ministry falls to the Judaizers. He contradicts the OT many times, for example circumcision.Can anyone with a clear objective of searching for the truth bounce some ideas around?
I am not going ouitside of scriptuire as I showed you thru scripture that the apostles did identify each others writings.
Not only did I show a few traditions that were from the bible but so did Jerome. Do you want me to show you more from the prevous list of traditions. Remember it was you who claimed that these were not from the bible…not me. I could have identified these before I was 12.
Mr coptic, youi keep bringing up messianic judaism. Just from my writings above they themselves would identify me as not in their camp. This is something I hope that youi can get past and move forward.
As for the rest of the questions,there are so many rigjht now, one answer has generated a landslide of questions
Before we go any further do you realise the mistake of the traditions? Do you want me to answer more of these traditions and point out where they are in the bible?
We will go around in circles. I have actually went with the flow for the first bit and the atmosphere was intent for anger and arguement

 

[CopticChristian]

Again I will repeat myself, I am trying to make the point that pauls words to timothy cannot refer to what we think he is saying. We do not know the other side of the conversation. If the OT is totally good for correction, then Pauls own ministry falls to the Judaizers. He contradicts the OT many times, for example circumcision.Can anyone with a clear objective of searching for the truth bounce some ideas around?
I am not going ouitside of scriptuire as I showed you thru scripture that the apostles did identify each others writings.
Not only did I show a few traditions that were from the bible but so did Jerome. Do you want me to show you more from the prevous list of traditions. Remember it was you who claimed that these were not from the bible…not me. I could have identified these before I was 12.
Mr coptic, youi keep bringing up messianic judaism. Just from my writings above they themselves would identify me as not in their camp. This is something I hope that youi can get past and move forward.
As for the rest of the questions,there are so many rigjht now, one answer has generated a landslide of questions
Before we go any further do you realise the mistake of the traditions? Do you want me to answer more of these traditions and point out where they are in the bible?
We will go around in circles. I have actually went with the flow for the first bit and the atmosphere was intent for anger and arguement

Happy,

You said…

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

I said…

**14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. **

16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The above passage you quoted as validating all of Scripture only validates the OT. How do you know that the NT books you have are Scripture?

you answer with this?

Again I will repeat myself, I am trying to make the point that pauls words to timothy cannot refer to what we think he is saying. We do not know the other side of the conversation. If the OT is totally good for correction, then Pauls own ministry falls to the Judaizers. He contradicts the OT many times, for example circumcision.Can anyone with a clear objective of searching for the truth bounce some ideas around?

You said that Timothy to Paul references Scripture and I said that it only validates the OT. What are you talking about the other side of the Conversation?

How does Paul contradict the OT and Circumcision?

 

[birdrock]

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?

 

[CopticChristian]

Even I can see that your answer can be applied to any faith you do not like

However more importantly, I find it odd that how we Anglicans cannot understand what it is like being Roman Catholic and therefore should not give answers

**but suddenly Roman Catholics can give answers on such issues they know absolutely nothing about from personal experience. **Only what they may have heard through loose hearsay and can therefore know all about protestants in their own mind yet know nothing to really be able to give a full well reasoned out answer.

If you never been Protestant then you won’t know if Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

The answer is off course we don’t Thats if you accept Anglicans as Protestants because this all really gets messy. God is at the centre of our lives. Not what the Church or Church Leaders tells us what to think, not just the Bible but the whole package. We listen to our priests and they guide us using the Bible but God is the absolute centre.We listen, prayer discerne, experience, make mistakes, get things wrong, learn and are closer to God every day for having the whole package but with God being the centre.

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: