Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

[CopticChristian]

Why, when Catholics are challenged about apostolic succession, what kind of rock Peter is, their interpretation of the Eucharist, the intervention of the Saints, the virginity of Mary and a host of other topics about which Christians disagree, they make recourse to the Bible to support their positions? I hear this on Catholic Radio all the time.

Didn’t the Church Fathers also do this?

Can the Catholic hierarchy in any given era, vote out some interpretation or other, like the psychiatrists vote mental illnesses up and down?

You’re confusing us simple Christians out here.

DA,

Let’s accept that Christian’s disagree. Take one thing at a time.

Interpretation of the Eucharist. Show me a time line as to when that disagreement commenced and what the disagreements are formed by whom.

I will help you in that the Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist was never challenged until the year 1000 and that person recanted the challenge. You figure out who it was.

Provide the timeline of disagreement so we and everyone else can be on the same page.

Take one thing at a time.

Ok:thumbsup:

 

[Porknpie]

Pork,
I think you misunderstand Ben’s point. By not referring to Tradition, which some protestants would reject out of hand, and relying on scripture, Catholics position themselves on a ground that protestants can’t reject with the response, " where is that in the Bible?".

At least, that’s the way I read it. I don’t think he was trying to say that Catholics don’t use the Bible any other time.

Jon

Hi Jon, then I was confused and probably still am. It’s nice to hear someone say that the Catholics use the bible! God bless him. That’s a funny statement given we hear nearly the whole thing just at Mass on a 3 yr cycle. 2 years if you go daily. So for me it’s something like 2.5 years.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon, then I was confused and probably still am. It’s nice to hear someone say that the Catholics use the bible! God bless him. That’s a funny statement given we hear nearly the whole thing just at Mass on a 3 yr cycle. 2 years if you go daily. So for me it’s something like 2.5 years.

Well, it is obvious for you and me, and probably Ben, since we have similar liturgy, using essentially the same lectionary. It may not be obvious to others who may not know that the Catholic (and Lutheran) Mass is primarily scripture, and there are (at least for us) four scripture readings at every divine service (mass).

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

At least, that’s the way I read it. I don’t think he was trying to say that Catholics don’t use the Bible any other time.

Jon

Thanks Jon, I did indeed mean than.

Sorry Porknpie! I wasn’t clear!

I use the same technique when I want to convince my Baptist friends that they’re missing the importance of the Eucharist - I rely on the Bible primarily so that they won’t immediately discount the idea that I’m trying to promote.

 

[Porknpie]

Well, it is obvious for you and me, and probably Ben, since we have similar liturgy, using essentially the same lectionary. It may not be obvious to others who may not know that the Catholic (and Lutheran) Mass is primarily scripture, and there are (at least for us) four scripture readings at every divine service (mass).

Jon

Jon, below is the 2nd reading from yesterdays mass. Ephesians 4:30. Some thing to remember when posting back and forth. We are all God’s beloved children. I don’t recall 4 readings at LCMS, what is the 4th compared to the Catholic Mass?

Brothers and sisters:
Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God,
with which you were sealed for the day of redemption.
All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling
must be removed from you, along with all malice.
And be kind to one another, compassionate,
forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ.

So be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love,
as Christ loved us and handed himself over for us
as a sacrificial offering to God for a fragrant aroma.

 

[CopticChristian]

Why, when Catholics are challenged about apostolic succession, what kind of rock Peter is, their interpretation of the Eucharist, the intervention of the Saints, the virginity of Mary and a host of other topics about which Christians disagree, they make recourse to the Bible to support their positions? I hear this on Catholic Radio all the time.

Didn’t the Church Fathers also do this?

Can the Catholic hierarchy in any given era, vote out some interpretation or other, like the psychiatrists vote mental illnesses up and down?

You’re confusing us simple Christians out here.

DA,

While you are creating that timeline of the Eucharist…check out this…

Oriental/Coptic Orthodox Church

copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/4_eucharist.html

The Meaning of the Eucharist

The Sacrament of Communion is a Holy Sacrament by which the believer eats the Holy Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, presented by the Bread and Wine. This Sacrament has the greatest importance among the Seven Church Sacraments. It is sometimes called the ‘Mystery of Mysteries’ or the ‘Crown of Sacraments’; for all the Sacraments are crowned by the Eucharist :

fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/commun1.htm#_Toc45240560

The Sacrament of the Eucharist (which means thanksgiving), also known as Holy Communion, holds a central place in the Orthodox Church. While in other sacraments objects such as water or oil are only sanctified, in Holy Communion the objects of the Sacrament, bread and wine, are not only sanctified but actually transformed into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. As a result, when a Christian receives Holy Communion, he receives Jesus Himself and joins with Him. So great is this mystery that no possible explanation can be found of how this happens, and one can only say with gratitude: “Thank You, my Lord!”

It is only the Orthodox and some ancient churches preserving the Apostolic tradition which hold to the belief that Communion is the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Most contemporary Christian churches think of Communion only as an observance commemorating the Last Supper.

Now here you have the unchanging beliefs of an Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox concerning the Eucharist. It looks pretty much the same as that belief of the Roman Catholic. So with the exception of that blip in the year 1000…this is the belief of the Eucharist…

Now for that timeline of disagreement…take your time…

 

[happy_88]

Pork n pie
I thought I should clear a few things up…again I have to back track and defend myself. I was refering to the Catholic church in one case. That most people don’t follow the church or the bible on the issie of contrception. Protestants obviosly do not for the most part have to follow the church on this subject.
As for tradition, there are many different types of tradition with different names attached to them, I have given different examples of a few of these, one poster probably never picked up on this.
I am actually in agreement with you guys on this topic, but still there was a reasom to attack.
I did use the wrong term infallacy…I did make an uncouncious booboo!
I would agree that on bc most Protestants do not follow the bible on this one, and in my experience it has become a traditional view that few know the origins…it evolved.
I also am not reading anuthing into the bible

 

[Erich]

Protestants obviosly do not for the most part have to follow the church on this subject.

And why is this somehow OK? When did this become OK?

As I asked in post #215, is this because each individual on his own now has final authority when it comes to interpreting the Bible (which leads to chaos)? For that matter, what gives folks the ability to confer upon themselves the ultimate authority to read and interpret Scripture, so as to decide for themselves what is true and what is false doctrine, without regard to any authority outside of themselves? Certainly not the Bible; in fact, nowhere does the Bible give each and every individual such authority!

No, God set up an authoritative guide that we could rely upon to help us understand His Word. The Bible is pretty clear that the Church – the pillar and ground of Truth – is that authoritative guide. And not just any church (or every church) but one Church. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. There’s only one Jesus, there’s only one Truth!

As I mentioned in post #181, there’s only one body of doctrinal and moral teachings out there which has to be true in its fullness because it is the body of doctrinal and moral teachings taught by Jesus and His Apostles, defended by them, and then handed on from the Apostles to the next generation of Church leaders and then handed on by them to still others (2 Tim 2:2). At the beginning of Christianity, there was one, and only one, set of true doctrinal and moral teachings. Denominations - divisions based on differences in beliefs - were condemned.

 

[CopticChristian]

Pork n pie
I thought I should clear a few things up…again I have to back track and defend myself. I was refering to the Catholic church in one case. That most people don’t follow the church or the bible on the issie of contrception. **Protestants obviosly do not for the most part have to follow the church on this subject.**As for tradition, there are many different types of tradition with different names attached to them, I have given different examples of a few of these, one poster probably never picked up on this.
I am actually in agreement with you guys on this topic, but still there was a reasom to attack.
I did use the wrong term infallacy…I did make an uncouncious booboo!
I would agree that on bc most Protestants do not follow the bible on this one, and in my experience it has become a traditional view that few know the origins…it evolved.
I also am not reading anuthing into the bible

Happy,

This sentence needs explanation. What Church are you referring to when speaking of Protestants following the Church? Is it the Catholic Church they do not have to follow? If not then, where is this Protestant Church that they don’t have to follow with a uniform body of teaching?

If Protestants don’t have to follow the Church for the most part, how and when do they decide to follow the Church?

If Protestants don’t follow the Church for the most part what does that mean when the Bible says…

The pillar and foundation of Truth is the Church
The manifold Wisdom of God is made know through the Church

Protestants then don’t have to follow the Truth or the manifold wisdom of God for the most part. Do you understand the mental gymnastics you are creating?

Your mind and thinking have wrongly accepted that the Bible is the court of appeals and everything you think is in reference to the Bible without realizing that the Bible does not support your thinking.

This is common for those that are distant from denominational thought and Post-Holiness movement thinking. It is seen in the Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Non-denominationals and Evangelical Protestant/Messianic Jew crowd.

The Evangelical thought process actually stems from Lutheran Thought. The Evangelical Free movement originated in the Lutheran Churches in Scandanavia and has morphed into the Evangelical Free thinking. The Protestant Messianic/Jew has embraced Evangelical thinking and is a mix of Lutheran/Post-Holiness movement thinking.

 

[happy_88]

How is it that Protestants believe that communion is symbolic, and Catholics believe that is the actual body and blood of Jesus?
For me I have a hard time reading into the text that it is the literal body and blood of our Lord.
Just curious…

 

[stewstew03]

How is it that Protestants believe that communion is symbolic, and Catholics believe that is the actual body and blood of Jesus?
For me I have a hard time reading into the text that it is the literal body and blood of our Lord.
Just curious…

Probably a question for another thread… feel free to start one on the subject of the Eucharist.

 

[happy_88]

I think it is applicable, are they sola sriptura on this or is the interpretation false. This is abig question. We have found that they don’t follow it on contraception.

 

[CopticChristian]

How is it that Protestants believe that communion is symbolic, and Catholics believe that is the actual body and blood of Jesus?
For me I have a hard time reading into the text that it is the literal body and blood of our Lord.
Just curious…

Happy,

I am happy that you asked a question. Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone? If you study the history of the Eucharist you will see that perhaps there is deviation here.

Catholics believe that it is the actual body and blood of Jesus based on Sacred Tradition and Scripture as taught by the Church. You have stumbled on a Tradition. This is the example. Stew is correct that you should if interested start a thread however since I see you have asked and have wondered about Tradition, here it is an example of Tradition using Scripture and the teaching of the Church. I have provided information for you. Review it if you choose.

Read the Bible with the following explanation found at this website that includes writings of the Fathers from which Tradition is drawn.

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this “new” bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn’t Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn’t Jesus say, “Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!”? Because they understood correctly.

At the end of that website you will see the writings of the Fathers of the Early Church, not Ancient Church, Early Church.

Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

The following website has an explanation in more detail.

theeucharist.wordpress.com/index/chapter-1/

We believe in the Eucharist based on Scripture, Sacred Tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church.

Catholics do not follow the Bible alone.

 

[pete_29]

Jesus said, “This IS my body” and “This IS my blood”. I don’t know what else needs to be said to prove Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

 

[joe370]

Jesus said, “This IS my body” and “This IS my blood”. I don’t know what else needs to be said to prove Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

Amen brother…

 

[joe370]

How is it that Protestants believe that communion is symbolic, and Catholics believe that is the actual body and blood of Jesus?
For me I have a hard time reading into the text that it is the literal body and blood of our Lord.
Just curious…

1 Cor. did it for me as a former protestant. Paul makes it really clear:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

 

[Porknpie]

How is it that Protestants believe that communion is symbolic, and Catholics believe that is the actual body and blood of Jesus?
For me I have a hard time reading into the text that it is the literal body and blood of our Lord.
Just curious…

Happy,

Do start a new thread…I encourage you. . One thing that I would add to consider is the prefiguring of the Eucharist in the OT manna from heaven. The manna was heavenly food that sustained the people but they died. The NT fulfillment in Jesus, the Bread of Life is heavenly food as well but is greater as it provides eternal life. The new testament fulfillment can not be less than the OT prefigurement. To say that the Eucharist is only symbolic would make the OT greater than the NT. This is in part why, the Jewish converts to Christianity readily accepted that the Eucharist was Christ’s actual body and blood. The church fathers writings and scripture testify to this belief.

 

[schwartzmann]

No, they don’t! And I can say this with 100% certainty, having been raised in a protestant home and having attended protestant churches of all sorts.

Many protestant churches/sects use not only doctrines taught by Martin Luther and other traditional church founders but also doctrines created in modern times. For instance, I’ve found that most protestant churches believe in an elaborate “rapture” scenario – the doctrine called dispensationalism, founded by John Nelson Darby in the 1800s! And nearly all of the protestant churches I’ve attended also teach doctrines founded by 20th and 21st century authors in numerous “self-help” and religious books.

What actually turned me off to organized religion altogether was the more appalling doctrines being taught in so many protestant churches in my area (and the country at large). These churches were incorporating textbook pyramid schemes into their church hierarchies through things such as “cell groups” and the “Principle of 12”… and the line between “tithes and offerings” and “membership dues” continually blurs. Too many of them are trying to “commercialize” Christ and sell God to their members.

This is precisely why I do not belong to any sect of Christianity, but identify myself as simply a Christian… nothing more, nothing less. I use nothing but the Bible… and unbiased material from scholarly sources when learning more about the history of our faith and holy texts.

 

[CopticChristian]

No, they don’t! And I can say this with 100% certainty, having been raised in a protestant home and having attended protestant churches of all sorts.

Many protestant churches/sects use not only doctrines taught by Martin Luther and other traditional church founders but also doctrines created in modern times. For instance, I’ve found that most protestant churches believe in an elaborate “rapture” scenario – the doctrine called dispensationalism, founded by John Nelson Darby in the 1800s! And nearly all of the protestant churches I’ve attended also teach doctrines founded by 20th and 21st century authors in numerous “self-help” and religious books.

What actually turned me off to organized religion altogether was the more appalling doctrines being taught in so many protestant churches in my area (and the country at large). These churches were incorporating textbook pyramid schemes into their church hierarchies through things such as “cell groups” and the “Principle of 12”… and the line between “tithes and offerings” and “membership dues” continually blurs. Too many of them are trying to “commercialize” Christ and sell God to their members.

This is precisely why I do not belong to any sect of Christianity, but identify myself as simply a Christian… nothing more, nothing less. I use nothing but the Bible… and unbiased material from scholarly sources when learning more about the history of our faith and holy texts.

Schwartz,

Thank you for pointing out that Protestants do not follow the Bible alone. I have a few questions.

Do you know where the Bible came from?

Does your Bible have 66 book?

The Bible promised a Church not scholars however I have to say that you are using “unbiased” material from scholarly sources. I have not found much in the way of stuff that has no bias. I would be beholding to you if you can provide me the authors and titles of these unbiased sources. It would help me so much.

thank you

 

[pablope]

No, they don’t! And I can say this with 100% certainty, having been raised in a protestant home and having attended protestant churches of all sorts.

This is precisely why I do not belong to any sect of Christianity, but identify myself as simply a Christian… nothing more, nothing less. I use nothing but the Bible… and unbiased material from scholarly sources when learning more about the history of our faith and holy texts.

Have you read how protestantism came about? When did this confusion start?

Prior to protestantism, what was the situation, is it the same as today?

As for your unbiased material, how do you determine which is unbiased? What is your criteria?

If you are using a criteria, how can you be sure you are not subsituting your own bias into it?

I hope you find time to read this article: calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/