Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

[happy_88]

I know exactly what tradition is…my family follows Judaism! I hear the same arguments and responses from them.
I am not a protestant and I feel that I can see both sides…I can see where they veer off into roads of fantasy, and i can see problems with the Catholic and Orthodox church. Most are actually the same root cause…we are all human.
I am wondering if you believe that the bible was written just for Catholics?If the Catholic Church takes credit for the bible…what about the Orthodox? I ask this respectfully…typing can be a taken the wrong way in one wrong word as there is not facial expressions(my keyboard is almost shot also)
If it was written just for Catholics, and that Catholics can only interpret it…then what about the other group that claims infallibility - the orthodox church?
With the parable of the mustard seed, if you really believe that it was intended for an expanding theology written and unwritten for only a specific church, then hold on to that for all your worth.
Do you believe that certain powers are only handed down to the pope since the first century, and only him and his advisers can interpret the bible?
What about the Orthodox?

The Roman Catholic Church at Trent declared that the Bible has the minimum of Scripture and it is Tradition that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have more Scripture. Protestants without authority removed books. This is all agreed on.

This is what I am talking about…tradition as good as scripture, one is oral and perverted over time, the other is written and we have manuscripts to show that it has not changed.
That is why I believe that the Orthodox and Catholic Church is in the same trap as Judaism.
Why was it declared at the council of Trent, what about the 1500 years before this?

 

[happy_88]

If the Bible is not a complete guide to doctrine, and we need the oral tradition of the church to have a fulness of truth?
Could you please draft me a list of doctrines that are not found anywhere in scripture but in the inspired oral traditions of the apostles in the first century?
Why are not the oral traditions of Jerome or Tertullian followed?
For example:

1. Three times emerged
   2.Drink milk and honey before baptism
   3.Sign of the cross on the forehead
   3.Kneeling in worship is forbidden

 

[pablope]

I know exactly what tradition is…my family follows Judaism! I hear the same arguments and responses from them.

I am not a protestant and I feel that I can see both sides…I can see where they veer off into roads of fantasy,

 

[pablope]

If the Bible is not a complete guide to doctrine, and we need the oral tradition of the church to have a fulness of truth?

Could you please draft me a list of doctrines that are not found anywhere in scripture but in the inspired oral traditions of the apostles in the first century?

 

[englishredrose]

wake me up when someone has something useful to say rather than simply attacking each other because you feel offended… :banghead:

i

 

[CopticChristian]

I know exactly what tradition is…my family follows Judaism! I hear the same arguments and responses from them.
**I am not a protestant **and I feel that I can see both sides…I can see where they veer off into roads of fantasy, and i can see problems with the Catholic and Orthodox church. Most are actually the same root cause…we are all human.
I am wondering if you believe that the bible was written just for Catholics?If the Catholic Church takes credit for the bible…what about the Orthodox? I ask this respectfully…typing can be a taken the wrong way in one wrong word as there is not facial expressions(my keyboard is almost shot also)
If it was written just for Catholics, and that Catholics can only interpret it…then what about the other group that claims infallibility - the orthodox church?
With the parable of the mustard seed, if you really believe that it was intended for an expanding theology written and unwritten for only a specific church, then hold on to that for all your worth.
Do you believe that certain powers are only handed down to the pope since the first century, and only him and his advisers can interpret the bible?
What about the Orthodox?

The Roman Catholic Church at Trent declared that the Bible has the minimum of Scripture and it is Tradition that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have more Scripture. Protestants without authority removed books. This is all agreed on.

This is what I am talking about…tradition as good as scripture, one is oral and perverted over time, the other is written and we have manuscripts to show that it has not changed.
That is why I believe that the Orthodox and Catholic Church is in the same trap as Judaism.
Why was it declared at the council of Trent, what about the 1500 years before this?

Happy,

Answer two questions for me. You keep avoiding answering questions and spend time with your point of view that sorrily is skewed and makes little sense.

1. Do you believe that the Bible is the only authority for Christians to follow?
2. Do you believe that you are saved by believing and Faith in Christ as your savior?

All I ask is a simple yes or no to those questions.

Next, Trent declared the minimum Canon based on Tradition of the Canon that had been previously declared at two other Councils. It was declared because the Church rarely declares anything unless there is reason to clarify or in opposition to disordered foreign beliefs. These councils in the past declared the minimum Faith, ie the NIcene Creed in opposition to teaching of error. Trent declared the minimal cannon in opposition to those that were toying with the Bible without any authority.

 

[CopticChristian]

If the Bible is not a complete guide to doctrine, and we need the oral tradition of the church to have a fulness of truth?
Could you please draft me a list of doctrines that are not found anywhere in scripture but in the inspired oral traditions of the apostles in the first century?
Why are not the oral traditions of Jerome or Tertullian followed?
For example:

1. Three times emerged
   2.Drink milk and honey before baptism
   3.Sign of the cross on the forehead
   3.Kneeling in worship is forbidden

Happy,

You do not understand tradition. Jesus has two natures, Jesus was really God/man, The Trinity, Salvific Baptism and more all based on Tradition found in the Scripture. These and others were declared based on opposition to error. Protestants are following these Traditions and believing that they were always believed by everyone and can be easily found in the Bible.

If you believe that is true then the Bible alone has given us The Oneness Pentacostals that do not believe in the Trinity, Jehovah Witness with a distorted Christology, 7th Day Adventists with another distorted Christology and I might add the Messianic Jews that want to import Judaizing Christianity that Paul fought in Romans, John Chrysostom fought later in the 4th century. It keeps coming back.

 

[CopticChristian]

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

Happy,

You believe that you are clarifying and teaching. In fact you are poorly informed. I do not say this as a criticism however what you don’t know is evident from what you profess you do know. You know little of history. To reference the Apostles Creed and the Nicene creed as both using “he descended into hell” and to then discuss the error implies that you do not kow the creeds or which creed you refer to.

The Creed which Catholics use is not really the Nicene Creed (adopted at the Council of Nicea in 325), but is (a modified version of) the “Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.” The second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (in 381) significantly reworked the original Creed of Nicea, adding much text and removing some (such as the anathema at the end), but did not assert any change to the name of the creed, so people continued to refer to it as the “Nicene Creed” (and still do), although it bears only a passing resemblance to the original.

This is an example of the use of Tradition and Scripture to verify and consolidate beliefs.

You are wrong in this understanding and should study some history before you attempt to clarify and teach. This is the CAF where you should ask questions and learn.

 

[CopticChristian]

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

Happy,

The NAB was published in 1970. The NIV was published in 1973. The King James Bible was published in 1611. There are other English translations that predate the King James. If you knew and understood the origins of the English translations then you would know from whence the Bible you have in your hands came from.

 

[CopticChristian]

happy 88;9623512**:

If the Bible is not a complete guide to doctrine, and we need the oral tradition of the church to have a fulness of truth?

Could you please draft me a list of doctrines that are not found anywhere in scripture but in the inspired oral traditions of the apostles in the first century?
Why are not the oral traditions of Jerome or Tertullian followed?
For example:

1. Three times emerged
   2.Drink milk and honey before baptism
   3.Sign of the cross on the forehead
   3.Kneeling in worship is forbidden

Happy,

Here you have answered my first question.

You believe that the Bible is a complete guide to Doctrine and reveals the fullness of truth. You did not say sole authority. In your prior references you do point out the lack of need for Creeds so I would assume you dismiss Creeds and believe that the Bible is the sole rule of Faith for Doctrine, teaching, without need of any outsider source. I believe that you would agree with this more formal description of Holy Scripture. Yes or No?

The Holy Scriptures

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.

Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God so much that man is left without any excuse, they are not sufficient to provide that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary for salvation.

Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal Himself, and to declare His will to His church;

• and afterward, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church, protecting it against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and the world,

• it pleased the Lord to commit His revealed Truth wholly to writing. Therefore the Holy Scriptures are most necessary, those former ways by which God revealed His will unto His people having now ceased.

Happy, a simple yes or no of agreement or disagreement would help understanding of your point of view.

 

[Porknpie]

Happy,

You believe that you are clarifying and teaching. In fact you are poorly informed. I do not say this as a criticism however what you don’t know is evident from what you profess you do know. You know little of history. To reference the Apostles Creed and the Nicene creed as both using “he descended into hell” and to then discuss the error implies that you do not kow the creeds or which creed you refer to.

The Creed which Catholics use is not really the Nicene Creed (adopted at the Council of Nicea in 325), but is (a modified version of) the “Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.” The second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (in 381) significantly reworked the original Creed of Nicea, adding much text and removing some (such as the anathema at the end), but did not assert any change to the name of the creed, so people continued to refer to it as the “Nicene Creed” (and still do), although it bears only a passing resemblance to the original.

This is an example of the use of Tradition and Scripture to verify and consolidate beliefs.

You are wrong in this understanding and should study some history before you attempt to clarify and teach. This is the CAF where you should ask questions and learn.

Coptic, could you answer the question “WHY” did the church develop the NT canon of scripture? I like to hear your explanation and think it would help Happy. This question would actually be good as a separate post.

Pork.

 

[EqualinHim]

Hmm. Well, I belong to a methodist church and I the answer could be summed up by something that my pastor once said: “bible first, other christian literature second”.

We primarily follow the bible, but we do look to other writings as sources of courage and inspiration. It is not uncommon for a protestant to read the writings of St. Augustine, St. Francis or many of the other saints. As a matter of fact a friend of ours (a veterinarian) named her one of her businesses (an animal rehabilitation center) after St. Francis of Assisi. She is a protestant, who attends the same church that I do.

 

[pablope]

Hmm. Well, I belong to a methodist church and I the answer could be summed up by something that my pastor once said: “bible first, other christian literature second”.

We primarily follow the bible, but we do look to other writings as sources of courage and inspiration. It is not uncommon for a protestant to read the writings of St. Augustine, St. Francis or many of the other saints. As a matter of fact a friend of ours (a veterinarian) named her one of her businesses (an animal rehabilitation center) after St. Francis of Assisi. She is a protestant, who attends the same church that I do.

Hmmm…so in summary, what you are saying is…Protestants do not really follow the Bible alone…but also read other writings and this affects or colors their understanding of Scripture…correct?

Please find time to read this: calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic, could you answer the question “WHY” did the church develop the NT canon of scripture? I like to hear your explanation and think it would help Happy. This question would actually be good as a separate post.

Pork.

Pork,

This is your idea and you are able to do this. I would make the post simple… I would suggest a simple statement, a simple proposal and then questions. I tend to follow the CAF and CA formula like Fathers Know Best…looking for a tongue in cheek title…suggestions would be…

Out with the Old, In with the New and How?
or
NT and those left behind, yes Left Behind
or
NT by whom, for what, and why

You take it…

 

[CopticChristian]

Hmm. Well, I belong to a methodist church and I the answer could be summed up by something that my pastor once said: “bible first, other christian literature second”.

We primarily follow the bible, but we do look to other writings as sources of courage and inspiration. It is not uncommon for a protestant to read the writings of St. Augustine, St. Francis or many of the other saints. As a matter of fact a friend of ours (a veterinarian) named her one of her businesses (an animal rehabilitation center) after St. Francis of Assisi. She is a protestant, who attends the same church that I do.

Equal,

This is fine today. If Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and if the Church is the body of Christ…then what did the body of Christ do before there was any Bible…and you have to admit that there was Scripture floating around, that many could not read, and that the notion that there was a Bible in every Jerusalem Marriott just ain’t so. What about that?

 

[Erich]

Could you please draft me a list of doctrines that are not found anywhere in scripture but in the inspired oral traditions of the apostles in the first century?

You mean,* in addition to* the inspired tradition that tells us what books belong in scripture to begin with? As I mentioned in post #20 on this thread, there are at least four such doctrines.

And, in post #179 I mentioned some examples of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Reliance on Oral Tradition.

Perhaps you could answer the following questions for us:

1. Where in the Bible does it say that we should go by the Bible alone when it comes to all matters pertaining to faith and morals? Scripture verse?
2. Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?
3. Where in the Bible does it say that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? Scripture verse?
4. Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
5. If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?
6. Do you believe the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?
7. If yes, where in the Bible does it tell us that the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?
8. Where in the Bible does it tell us who the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was? Scripture verse?
9. Do you interpret the Bible? Yes or no?
10. If the answer to #9 is yes, is your interpretation infallible? Yes or no?
11. If the answer to #9 is no, then will you admit that your interpretations of the Bible could be wrong in one or more places? Yes or no?
12. If the answer to #9 is yes, then does anyone have the authority to tell you that your interpretations of the Bible are wrong? Yes or no?
13. If the answer to #12 is yes, then who? Just one name please.

 

[happy_88]

Respectfully I never said that creeds are wrong. When I mentioned the apostles or Nicene creeds I lumped them together as this is atopic about protestantism and catholicism.To point out that I know nothing about history is based on what? I do know that there were many councils to get the final creed.
Let’s look at my understanding of history…and tradition. This will be a two for one analogy.
How did the viewpoint on history in europe become so anti catholic? If you look closely you will find common protestant and atheist sources. The exagerrated examples of church persecution has been stated in the death oftens of millions. This is not really true at all. While it does have some truth to it, one half truth builds on another and now this is taken as a fact by many people without searching for the truth.
As with having to look to outside sources for scriptures…this is true also. Let’s look at the mustard seed parable. One has to find what type of mustard plant grew in Judea. One will find that it is the black mustard plant. What does it look like? When one finds out what it looks like, then one should ask why would Jesus use this plant? Why did he not just use the analogy of a tree?A mustard tree is hardly an inviting plant for birds to rest in. It kind of resembles a big stinging needle or st johns wort. Then one should look in scripture to find any references to birds nesting on trees. This research helps with exegesis. Yes I had to go to many oitside sources for this. Just like the above topic about the inquisition or the boible we are to test everything. Try to have discernment

 

[CopticChristian]

Respectfully I never said that creeds are wrong. When I mentioned the apostles or Nicene creeds I lumped them together as this is atopic about protestantism and catholicism.To point out that I know nothing about history is based on what? I do know that there were many councils to get the final creed.
Let’s look at my understanding of history…and tradition. This will be a two for one analogy.
How did the viewpoint on history in europe become so anti catholic? If you look closely you will find common protestant and atheist sources. The exagerrated examples of church persecution has been stated in the death oftens of millions. This is not really true at all. While it does have some truth to it, one half truth builds on another and now this is taken as a fact by many people without searching for the truth.
As with having to look to outside sources for scriptures…this is true also. Let’s look at the mustard seed parable. One has to find what type of mustard plant grew in Judea. One will find that it is the black mustard plant. What does it look like? When one finds out what it looks like, then one should ask why would Jesus use this plant? Why did he not just use the analogy of a tree?A mustard tree is hardly an inviting plant for birds to rest in. It kind of resembles a big stinging needle or st johns wort. Then one should look in scripture to find any references to birds nesting on trees. This research helps with exegesis. Yes I had to go to many oitside sources for this. Just like the above topic about the inquisition or the boible we are to test everything. Try to have discernment

Happy,

You seem to understand parables. Explain this, Luke 11:1

11“Which of you fathers, if your son asks forf a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?

 

[happy_88]

Sorry computer crashed, it is on its last leg!
Again about using other extra biblical references, this is a must to find out the true meaning of a text…as we are not the first hand recipients of the bible.
Here is agood example. Someone asked what did I mean about Romans 8 in a previous post.
In Romans and I think in Galations Paul uses the term “adoption” and “adoption of sons”
This will show Pauls genious in relating the Gospel to an audience.
In ancient Rome a citizen could adopt another person to his family…now in our minds we are probably relating this to a child adoption. In Roman law (I forget the latin word) this also included a full grown man. If a man was adopted he severed his ties with his old family and assumed all normal rights including inheriance with his new family. Even his debts and responsibilties did not cross into the new family. Did Paul use some obscure unknown law to relate to the audience…NO. Everyone in the empire would have been aware of his words…as the Emperor Claudius had adopted Nero into his household, which thru inhertance made him heir to the throne.
I think this is masterfully illustrated by paul, but is only known by not reading the text at face value. This is one cause of protestants going off the mark…Sola scriptura cannot be just a feeling or unique insight…there needs to be carefull exegesis done.
Has anyone else done any study on a verse or two…it would be great to share!
I have been curious,how does.a christian read the bible and support contraception on demand, or contraception in general? This is a big sola scriptura question.

 

[CopticChristian]

Sorry computer crashed, it is on its last leg!
Again about using other extra biblical references, this is a must to find out the true meaning of a text…as we are not the first hand recipients of the bible.
Here is agood example. Someone asked what did I mean about Romans 8 in a previous post.
In Romans and I think in Galations Paul uses the term “adoption” and “adoption of sons”
This will show Pauls genious in relating the Gospel to an audience.
In ancient Rome a citizen could adopt another person to his family…now in our minds we are probably relating this to a child adoption. In Roman law (I forget the latin word) this also included a full grown man. If a man was adopted he severed his ties with his old family and assumed all normal rights including inheriance with his new family. Even his debts and responsibilties did not cross into the new family. Did Paul use some obscure unknown law to relate to the audience…NO. Everyone in the empire would have been aware of his words…as the Emperor Claudius had adopted Nero into his household, which thru inhertance made him heir to the throne.
I think this is masterfully illustrated by paul, but is only known by not reading the text at face value. This is one cause of protestants going off the mark…Sola scriptura cannot be just a feeling or unique insight…there needs to be carefull exegesis done.
Has anyone else done any study on a verse or two…it would be great to share!
I have been curious,how does.a christian read the bible and support contraception on demand, or contraception in general? This is a big sola scriptura question.

Happy,

The Bible and Birth Control by Charles Provan has a thorough explanation of why Birth Control is wrong.

amazon.com/Bible-Birth-Control-Charles-Provan/dp/9991799834