Protestant Beliefs Not in the Bible

[Shibboleth]

Chris W:

As a Catholic, I certainly would not dispute that the Bible is inspired by God and inerrent. Nor would I dispute that the Bible is good and profitable. But Protestants take it one step further and say the Bible is the ONLY authority. That belief is not scriptural.

What’s more, it simply cannot be scriptural because Sola Scriptura is not a belief that can be demonstrated to work. If it worked surely someone would be able to describe how Sola Scriptura leads a person to certainty of belief. I therefore conclude the belief is false, and since it is false it cannot be scriptural.

God must have given us the ability to know with certainty what is truth, because the Gospel of John tells us that “the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeks such to worship Him. God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.” (John 4, 23-24).

Sola Scriptura cannot lead a person to certainty of belief (absolute truth) because any belief that is derived from that method is reduced to mere human opinion, since it provides no authority with which a personal interpretation can be verified.

One must interpret the Scriptures just as one must interpret the Infallible Proclamations of the Magisterium. We will make error, we are not perfect – and we should always seek out those that are more knowledgeable than us in such matters.

The Pope does help in clarification but he does not prevent people from making mistakes. Look at all of the disagreement with Vatican II. All Catholic individuals agree that it is ‘infallible’ or ‘inerrant’ – not sure which word is used here – but peoples perceptions of the meaning behind the words differ. Ask 400 Catholics which wars are Just based off the Just War Doctrine and you will have many different answers and some heated argumentation.

If one spends some time in the Politics Forum one can see just how different personal interpretations of the edicts of the Magisterium can be…

 

[sabrinaofmn]

Melchior:

Not to hijack this thread but do you think tithing is a bad idea? Did Jesus abolish tithing? Even if it is optional (I am not arguing either way) wouldn’t 10% be a minimum someone would want to give if they really love their church and consider themselves a part of her? Why wouldn’t someone want to tithe? Granted it should be done with a grateful heart. But I am honestly embarrassed when people in my denomination argue against giving a certain amount to God.

Mel

Tithing is a very bad idea because we are no longer bound by the old law. However, GIVING and SUPPORTING THE MATERIAL NEEDS OF THE CHURCH are very good ideas. If you study tithing you will find that there were three (I think) different forms of tithing in the OT - one for 10%, another for I think 1/3, and I can’t remember the last. Protestants only preach a loose interpretation of the OT tithing law.

As far as how much to give, that’s a difficult question. Because I have been a Protestant, I have loosely given 10%. Asking how much one should give is like asking how much one should pray - it’s subjective.

Another interesting sidenote is that the OT tithing covered a lot of things that our current taxes now cover. For example, social security and medicare takes care of the widows, and orphans are also taken care of by the state.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

The Pope does help in clarification but he does not prevent people from making mistakes. Look at all of the disagreement with Vatican II. All Catholic individuals agree that it is ‘infallible’ or ‘inerrant’ – not sure which word is used here – but peoples perceptions of the meaning behind the words differ. Ask 400 Catholics which wars are Just based off the Just War Doctrine and you will have many different answers and some heated argumentation.

The pope is infallible only when he speaks “ex cathedra”. The last time has been in 1950.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Right. The question of people making mistakes or disagreeing is irrelevant to the larger issue of authority of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.

Scott

 

[Chris_W]

Shibboleth:

One must interpret the Scriptures just as one must interpret the Infallible Proclamations of the Magisterium. We will make error, we are not perfect – and we should always seek out those that are more knowledgeable than us in such matters. QUOTE]

So who do advocates of Sola Scriptura turn to when disagreement arises? Protestant teachers? Okay, I can see value in that. But what happens when those teachers don’t agree with each other? And so on.

There is an intrinsic need for a single head to Christ’s church on earth (of course not replacing Christ) who can settle disputes and proclaim, with unquestionable authority, what is and what is not absolute truth. Without this facililty in place, everyone would be left to their own opinions and devices to arrive at what they feel or think is true, regardless of whether or not they are correct. People in this situation are prevented, accept by chance, from accomplishing what God wants (for His worshippers to worship in spirit and truth). Instead, they will worship in partial truths, perhaps even with critical errors in belief.

Conclusion: Sola Scriptura does not provide the means to the end. It is not capable of determining absolute truth. Therefore, to assert that the Bible is the ONLY authority simply cannot be true. And since it is not true, it cannot be scripturally based, since the Bible contains no errors. Sola Scriptura is a belief arrived at through error of interpretation.

I hope my dialogue does not come across as harsh. I try to be logical, but I say these things in the spirit of Christian love.

 

[Exporter]

BengalFan,

Your profile says you are a youth minister and a “transitional Catholic”:…Right? What is a “transitional” Catholic.

I hope you aren’t teaching the youth what you posted. Tongues? During Pentacost just after the Ascention the Apostles were gathered when the Holy Spirit came upon them.

Since it was Pentacost many people had gathered in Jerusalem as the Jewish Law was being observed. They were from several different countries and spoke different languages. The Apostles spoke either one or two languages. When the Apostles went out and spoke to the crowds the crowds heard the Gospel in each of their own languages. The Apolstles were, with help from the Holy Spirit, able to speak the languages of all those gathered. God did this to aid the Apostles. It is said that when St. Francis SJ landed in India, he spoke to the children in their native language: thus hastening esyablishing a Church there. He is the Francis who St. Ignatias of Loyola catechised.

They did not speak as you may hear the fakes today: saying a few sylables over and over. The Apostles actually spoke a language!
Mona- soba lula-pentarch. Might be what modern fakes would say. It means absolutely nothing. The Pentacostals ( a Protestant Church) are noted for those meaningless chatterings.:tsktsk:

 

[Steve_M]

So who do advocates of Sola Scriptura turn to when disagreement arises? Protestant teachers? Okay, I can see value in that. But what happens when those teachers don’t agree with each other? And so on.

There is an intrinsic need for a single head to Christ’s church on earth (of course not replacing Christ) who can settle disputes and proclaim, with unquestionable authority, what is and what is not absolute truth.

This is the common sense position that was the final piece in my conversion to Catholicism. Even within certain demonitations, such as Baptist, there are different beliefs. Freewill Baptist believe you can lose your salvation, while Southern Baptist believe you can’t. Both cannot be right. These types of contradictory beliefs are prevalent in the Protestant demonitations.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

sabrinaofmn:

I contend that Protestants hold many traditions of men even though they say that they are Bible only.

Yes, I think that is a good point.

Greg

 

[csr]

“Let Dan be a serpent by the roadside, a horned viper by the path, that bites the horse’s heel, so that the rider tumbles backward.” Genesis 49:17

This was a fascinating look at the Scriptures. Thank you–I had never considered the direction of one’s fall, at least not in an organized way. This may have been the most stimulating result of this thread!

---

What is man that thou art mindful of him?

 

[mtr01]

oat soda:

i asked for one scripture that supports sola scriptura so i’ll start with the first one you cited.

15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

this is not even implicit support of sola scriptura. if it was, it would have to say: “scripture will instruct thee to salvation… all scripture is inspired by God and is sufficent and the sole rule of authority”.

One also finds the words “God-breathed” instead of “inspired of God”. The argument is thus, “only scripture is God-breathed.” One of the things I like to point out in response is John 20:21-22:

21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. (DRV)

In other words, when Christ sent the apostles out to preach the Word, they were literally God-breathed as well, with the Holy Spirit truly as their guide. Maybe I’m crazy, but to me that seems pretty clear that Sacred Tradition is on the same level as Sacred Scripture.

 

[bengal_fan]

Exporter:

BengalFan,

Your profile says you are a youth minister and a “transitional Catholic”:…Right? What is a “transitional” Catholic.

I hope you aren’t teaching the youth what you posted. Tongues? During Pentacost just after the Ascention the Apostles were gathered when the Holy Spirit came upon them…

They did not speak as you may hear the fakes today: saying a few sylables over and over. The Apostles actually spoke a language!
Mona- soba lula-pentarch. Might be what modern fakes would say. It means absolutely nothing. The Pentacostals ( a Protestant Church) are noted for those meaningless chatterings.:tsktsk:

i am in the process of conversion to the catholic church. i work for a para church organization and i don’t deal with the issue of tongues. that is what i mean by “transitional”.

i think you are forgetting when paul writes to the corinthians about tongues. the gift is always accompanied with the gift of interpretation (in the apostle’s case at pentacost, the listeners were able to interpret it themselves). the gift of interpretation could mean one of three things: no one knew the language, the language hadn’t been “invented” yet (i.e. paul speaking in a native american tongue or even english which would have sounded like meaningliess chatterings w/o an interpreter), or it was an angelic language. paul alludes to the angelic languages when he says, “if i speak in the tongues of men or of angels…”. i believe that pentacostals have taken that verse out of context but it is a possible interpretation of the scriptures. i do not practice tongues. i never have (some protestants would say that means i’m not “saved” but oh well). but i can’t call those people fake. i don’t know if they are or not. i am sure some of them are but i would never be able to tell you who (and neither can anyone else). my point is that, it is an interpretation of scripture. it does have merit and needs to be addressed. when determining something as valid we must compare it with scripture and church teaching. to my knowledge, the church has never condemned the charismatics (i’m speaking of the catholic charismatics now) for their practices and, in fact, have actually encouraged it in places. so, you don’t need to worry about what i’m “teaching the youth” as i don’t get into those deep issues (but i appreciate your concern), but i would suggest that you, exporter, and all of us also not condemn something right away just because we have never experienced it. i have known many sincere believers who have grown closer to the Lord through their experience with tongues, healings, and anything else “spirit-filled”. they are honest people and i know them not to be liars or “fakes”. they might have been conditioned but that is another story. you bring up a biblical passage that supports your theory and experience but ignore the passage that supports theirs (just as they do to you). we must reconcile both of them together.

 

[Melchior]

sabrinaofmn:

Thank you, Scott, this is exactly what I was looking for!!!

The problem is, Protestant is being used, as it often is on this board, as if it were a denomination with one set of beliefs. It is a catch all that included Christians with beliefs as differerent from each other as they are from Catholics. So if the list said “Baptist or Pentacostal beliefs that contradict scripture” then it would make more sense. But by attributing the beliefs of some to others who don’t hold them is sloppy at best and ignorant at worst.

By saying “Protestants believe…” when many don’t is bearing false witness unless one does not know better.

Mel

Mel

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Sarah Jane, when you say “the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra–the last time was in 1950”–do you mean that encyclicals like Humanae Vitae, Lumen Gentium, etc. are “not infallible” teachings?

Respectfully, I disagree. Infallibility v. impeccability aside, the Pope can be said to ALWAYS speak infallibly ex cathedra, and to likewise speak INFALLIBLY when speaking or teaching the deposit of faith as per the Magisterium, whether he explictly states that such teaching is “ex cathedra” or not.

Thus, John Paul II’s views on the war in Iraq are not “infallible”, as they reflect his personal opinion and were not speaking of or teaching the deposit of faith.

Paul VI’s “Humanae Vitae” and its teachings on contraception ARE INFALLIBLE, though not specifically stated as being “ex cathedra”, because they are taught from the deposit of faith, which itself reflects infallible teaching.

 

[tru_dvotion]

Dear bengal_fan,

Tongues at Pentecost (in Acts) were to make the church grow exponentially. They were also known languages; languages those hearing tongues understood. In other words:

Tongues illuminated, caused an understanding. Think of it as a reverse Babel. It was an extraordinary gift at the time, God suspending the judgment of Babel. All listeners understood in their native tongues. Yet the apostles were unlearned fishermen, they would have only spoken one or two dialects on their own. This was the nature of tongues at Pentecost.

But what we have in charismatic circles is the complete opposite of the gift at Pentecost. Not only it is a meaningless babble, nobody understands anything> there is no interpretation> no illumination>no understanding. They just go on an on “shadaishamata…” or whatever. Who benefits? What utter nonsense! This is modern day Babel! Just as I showed you with the slain in the spirit practice, the charismatic practice of tongues is the exact opposite of what the Holy Spirit would accomplish. Instead of illuminating, charismatic tongues cause confusion and no understanding. Paul described them as appearing to be lunatics.

What Paul says when he corrects the Corinthians is if nobody interprets>understands what is being said, they are to remain silent. In Protestant Pentecostal circles they built up an entire ministry of interpretation. Usually the same person interprets, but not always. (Wonders never cease) There was a Harward study, and don’t ask me for the link, do a research, has shown that among the thousands of contemporary tongues recorded at prayer meetings, the linguists found that none were in fact languages, they were void of language structure. Well now… so much for “interpreting” a language that is not a language.

continued

 

[tru_dvotion]

You also bring up angelic tongues. First of all, how angels communicate would most definitely be beyond out capacity to comprehend and besides what crazy purpose would it serve anyway? Are we conversing with angels? In all biblical passages angels communicating with people, angels appear as flesh and blood and speak human languages. The angelic existence is so alien to our worldly existence, that no human sound would be capable to reproduce it. What Paul does with saying if I were to speak in the tongues of man or of angels is stating a hypothetical question: Like when someone says “If I were able to go to the end of the world… “ Well of course going to the end of the world is illogical, because what is the end of the world anyway? To the person living in Asia it may mean North America. To someone in Australia this may mean the North Pole? “If I were to speak of all the languages of men and even that of angels I would still” is what Paul meant. If human beings were meant to or could speak angel tongue, there would be more reference to angel tongue in the Bible, certainly more than one sentence. This is a common Protestant mistake, and since the Charismatic movement was born in the bowels of a Protestant sect and brought into the Catholic Church, NO implanted into it, the Catholic charismatics fall into the exact same trap: taking one liners out of context and building an entire cult around it. How pathetic!

The sad truth is that some of our clergy, and this goes all the way to the Vatican has embraced this false movement and it will take great courage to reverse it. It will be reversed, have no fear! This has happened before, some false movements have persisted for several hundred years but eventually the Church expelled them in triumph.

You seem to think people who are speaking out against the fallacies of the charismatic movement have no clue what they are talking about. This could not be further from the truth. Otherwise, many of us would look as foolish as those who are defending the movement without any real knowledge or experience with it… do you not think so?

“Charismatics are honest people”, that is true, but terribly misguided and under the control of a false spirit and their theological experience is restricted to regurgitating false explanations of Bible passages. I noticed, you had nothing further to say about the slain in the spirit topic, and what could you say, with nothing solid to back up your claim to its authenticity or validity?

 

[Shibboleth]

I contend that Protestants hold many traditions of men even though they say that they are Bible only.

There is so much that I would like to reply to - but I am going to make direct reference to this first. I am not well versed on the language of some of the Protestant Faiths but I have not run into many that call themselves “Bible Only.” I have to admit that I do not generally like talking to Fundamentalist and Pentecostals so I will have to proclaim my ignorance on what they refer to themselves as…

Anyways, Lutherans do not deny that we hold many many traditions – in fact we defend them. We are a Church that loves the Liturgies. We do have beliefs that are not directly stated in the scriptures, but they are implied on one level or another. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are spoken of in the scriptures and so is their divinity. Being one God we must ipso facto come to the conclusion that they are the same God in the form of a trinity.

The Church Fathers held this belief and proclaimed this matter. We do not ignore the Church Fathers but we do hold that they can be fallible and wrong on issues. So if one were to say that Jesus was born man and became God – we would say scripturaly this does not seem to be the case.

On the Denominations of Protestants…
This is an issue that perplexes some Catholics and makes them wonder how we can still hold onto our beliefs in light of this fact.

You must realize that we do not believe that everyone when interpreting the scriptures is a Pope. We believe that no one is a Pope and that they can all make mistakes – not only can they but we are assured of this fact. Some Protestants tend to forget this…

Additionally, we do not believe in a visible Church – so although we have denominations we believe that we are all of the Church catholic. We are one with many names. Do we disagree with each other – sure but we also learn from each other.

But you do not have big “T” truth? Do we need it? I do not. My simple mind could not even comprehend the full extent of God’s Truth. I have faith in him and that he is True. Things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary are certainly important but I do not really need to know them absolutely.

 

[Chris_W]

Shibboleth:

We believe that no one is a Pope and that they can all make mistakes – not only can they but we are assured of this fact. Some Protestants tend to forget this….

This would be another topic, but I do not agree that we can be assured no one can be infallible. If you believe the Bible is without error, than you already acknowlege that God can and has given the gift of infallibility to men under certain circumstances, in this case to the authors, at least during the time of their writing. It was necessary. I would argue for the same necessity with regard to the Pope, but I don’t want to detract too much from this thread’s topic.

Shibboleth:

But you do not have big “T” truth? Do we need it? I do not. My simple mind could not even comprehend the full extent of God’s Truth. I have faith in him and that he is True. Things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary are certainly important but I do not really need to know them absolutely.

Ah, but absolute truth is indeed necessary. What if divorce is adulty? What if contraception is a serious sin? What if churches don’t teach people this and the people therefore do not repent from these sins? Etc. Different denominations have conflicting beliefs, as you stated. Aside from the division this causes in the family of believers, there may in fact be very serious consequences for the errors taught by non-authoritative teachers.

But the point is, as you seem to acknowlege, that Sola Scriptura is not capable of determining what is truth and what is not. Therefore, the Bible cannot be the ONLY source of religious truth. We can conclude then, that Sola Scritpura is a false premise. Thus, it cannot be scripturally based.

 

[bengal_fan]

tru_devotion,

i am not in any way saying that i disagree with anything you have said. my whole point is that, even though we don’t agree with their biblical argument, they do have one. i agree with your interpretation of tongues. i agree with your interpretation on being slain in the spirit. but you must agree that they didn’t just invent these things. they do use biblical (although faulty) arguments for their experiences. the problem that you and i face is that we have not had these experiences. how can you tell some one who experiences these things (i.e. tongues or feeling pushed to the ground in prayer or healing) that their experience was wrong? you can’t and neither can i and the church has never done so either. you and i might have a different take on the whole thing but we cannot say, for sure, that their experiences are not true. if it brings them closer to Christ why argue? especially if the church has not outright condemned these things as being false.

 

[Shibboleth]

Chris W:

Ah, but absolute truth is indeed necessary. What if divorce is adulty? What if contraception is a serious sin? What if churches don’t teach people this and the people therefore do not repent from these sins? Etc. Different denominations have conflicting beliefs, as you stated. Aside from the division this causes in the family of believers, there may in fact be very serious consequences for the errors taught by non-authoritative teachers.

But the point is, as you seem to acknowlege, that Sola Scriptura is not capable of determining what is truth and what is not. Therefore, the Bible cannot be the ONLY source of religious truth. We can conclude then, that Sola Scritpura is a false premise. Thus, it cannot be scripturally based.

Luckily we are not left to ourselves. We were left with the Holy Spirit to help guide us. My faith is not in the Bible to lead me towards truth but in Jesus, his Gospel, and the Holy Spirit. My fallen nature will definitely lead me astray at times but if my faith is true and strong then I am O.K.

Divorce was defiantly not God’s original plan, but he did make it possible due to the hardness of our harts. What if it is adultery? If it is then we should concern ourselves with the forgiveness aspect and know that God’s ability to forgive is greater than our ability to sin.

In Luther’s earlier years he used to beat himself up over sins that he forgot to confess and ask for forgiveness on… of course we can never state every sin that we have done and ask for forgiveness of each and every sin. Faith is an active and living thing and by the time we get to verbally asking for forgiveness of our sins before God our faith has already done it for us… Asking for forgiveness is simply the external manifestation of the faith that is within us. If one does not ask for forgiveness it is not a failure in our asking God but a failure in having Faith in God.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Melchior:

The problem is, Protestant is being used, as it often is on this board, as if it were a denomination with one set of beliefs. It is a catch all that included Christians with beliefs as differerent from each other as they are from Catholics. So if the list said “Baptist or Pentacostal beliefs that contradict scripture” then it would make more sense. But by attributing the beliefs of some to others who don’t hold them is sloppy at best and ignorant at worst.

By saying “Protestants believe…” when many don’t is bearing false witness unless one does not know better.

Mel

Mel

Sorry, but this is a perfectly acceptable generalization in a colloquial discussion and does not count as bearing false witness or is sloppy. If the discussion becomes more theologically nuanced then we can fine tune the distinctions.

Scott