Question for SS believers:

[bookgirl32]

I assume when you say that I have to prove everything from Scripture alone, you mean all religious truths pertaining to salvation.

I digress…

"The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the Jews. These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so. Many of them became believers, as did not a few of the influential Greek women and men.” - Acts 17:10-12

You say that we can’t check everything against Scripture, yet that’s just what the Bereans are being praised for. If they had found that what Paul and Silas were preaching was NOT in the Scriptures, do you think they would have believed? Not likely. Why would they be praised, then?

Then please explain to me how millions of Jews had the SAME scripture, heard the SAME message, and DID NOT believe BASED ON the same scripture? Paul and Silas did not, in this verse, tell them to “check it to scripture”, they praised them for looking, but didnt’ tell them to (or if they did, it’s definitely not recorded in this verse). Praising them for doing something is not the equivalent of “you MUST do this”. I check things to scripture all the time, I just don’t believe it is authoritative over Tradition, and I don’t believe that Tradition is authoritative over Scripture. I think that the Church’s interpretation of these equally authoritative sources is, however, authoritative over private, personal interpretation. Why do you keep treating me as if I do not think Scripture is authoritative?

(And yes, I know that their Scriptures were only the Old Testament. That’s irrelevant. The New Testament is Scripture for us, and the same rules apply.

Really, is this an interpretation, or did you read some specific verse pertaining to the New Testament that I missed?

Why would the Jews be praised for checking the Scriptures to “see whether these things were so” yet the Christians not be praised for this?)

I would say all would be praised for this. I would not, however, think that the Jews that put their own interpretation over Paul and Silas’ teaching, were praised for believing something other than what Paul and Silas were teaching them.

If I say, “I’m checking the Scriptures to see of what the Catholic Church teaches is so?” would you praise me for this, or would you condemn me?

I wouldn’t condemn you, I’m not God. I’d say that there is no need to “check” Catholic teaching with the scripture (there might be much to gain from it, but it is not necessary) b/c the scripture is part of the teaching authority of the Church.

I would, however, say that to put your own personal interpretation of the scriptures by themselves could very likely lead you to misinterpretation, and therefore the confusion that you encountered.

Does the Bible interpret itself? I keep asking this, and no one answers me.

 

[bookgirl32]

Here is what I said the teaching of the Fathers is:

“In short, they believed that they, the Church, have the authority to pass on the teaching of the Apostles, which is contained in Scripture. To properly understand Scripture, however, we must use the Tradition of the Church.”

Okay, again, you didn’t quote me any actual Church Fathers.

I understand that as being one form of Sola Scriptura, and one many Protestants hold. A poorer form, which prevents us from using anything outside of Scripture itself to interpret Scripture, is more common among “fundamentalist” Protestants.

My point is that if anything you personally interpret in the Scriptures “trumps” any other truth, than how is that really any different?

The real question is what is meant by “Tradition.” For the Fathers, the question was “Is this an innovation, or is this an historical belief?” The Reformers and later Protestants were aware of this criteria, too. So, for example, the Book of Concord made attempts to link Lutheran doctrine to the Fathers. Baptists such as John T. Christian attempted to establish the apostolic links of the Baptist church. (Whether or not they were successful is another matter altogether.)

While Dei Verbum acknowledges this, it goes a step farther and defines Tradition as some positive thing which contains dogma that Scripture does not.

For example:

“Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.” - Dei Verbum.9

Now, here is a quote from one of the Fathers, St. Vincent of Lerins:

[4.] I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason,— because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as manyinterpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

Your problem here is assuming that Tradition and Scripture would contradict eachother. The above passages, at first read, do disprove anything that I’m saying, they only support it.

 

[SyCarl]

Does the Bible interpret itself? I keep asking this, and no one answers me.

i think that in the essentials it does. I would agree with Augustine.

Chapter 9.CHow We Should Proceed in Studying Scripture.

1. In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life, to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.-Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
   newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

 

[JTBT]

If a teaching conflicts with Scripture, Tradition, or the God-given authority of the Church to interpret either, then it is wrong. With personal interpretation, many things could indeed conflict with that iterpretation. It doesn’t mean they’re actually conflicting with scripture. Again, I’m not arguing against the authority of scripture, I’m arguing against the idea of personal interpretation which, by way of denying the interpreting authority of the Church, allows scripture to be misinterpreted, but then be the final authority. Scripture does not interpret itself, would you agree?

I’m not sure what your point is. for example does the paragraph you just wrote interpret itself, well no it does not; unless I have someone read it to me(even then someone had to interpret it). and that is really what Sola scriptura is about; it is learning how to read things for myself instead of having someone read it to me. Granted this harder than just taking someone’s word on it, but I know what I believe and I know why I believe it.

First of all, if only scripture is what’s good, then why are you a “sola” and not a “solo”? And where does that quote say, “and check it to scripture”?

you still don’t understand the difference between Sola and Solo. it’s not that I don’t hold to any Tradition;when reading the Bible you have to take into account context, and historical interpretation (Tradition ) it is the order of primacy I place on them. in the Bible I read eyewitness accounts of the Risen Christ; I have no reason to place this testimony under the authority of any man/woman alive today.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

Then please explain to me how millions of Jews had the SAME scripture, heard the SAME message, and DID NOT believe BASED ON the same scripture?

Because, as that verse said, the Bereans were diligently searching through the Scriptures, those in Thessolonica, for example, were not.

Note, you still didn’t answer the question of what the Bereans would have done if they found that something Paul said was NOT in Scripture.

Praising them for doing something is not the equivalent of “you MUST do this”.

Again, you’re arguing against a view of SS no one here is advocating. We are saying that Scripture is sufficient, not necessary. Else, those who could not read (or hear) could not be saved!

I check things to scripture all the time, I just don’t believe it is authoritative over Tradition, and I don’t believe that Tradition is authoritative over Scripture. I think that the Church’s interpretation of these equally authoritative sources is, however, authoritative over private, personal interpretation. Why do you keep treating me as if I do not think Scripture is authoritative?

Why do you keep thinking we’re out to get you and show that you don’t believe in the authority of Scripture? I already told you the value of tradition; it helps us interpret Scripture.

I might have used this analogy already. Suppose I think Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov is a perfect novel. In terms of learning about those things which it tries to teach me about, it is sufficient. But that does not mean that I* must* read it to learn about those things, nor does it mean that I need not learn about Dostoevsky’s life, or the history of Russian lit, or the historical context of the time, or of how others have historically interpreted the novel in order to properly understand it.

My disagreement is with the notion that Scripture does not contain all the truths of revelation.

Really, is this an interpretation, or did you read some specific verse pertaining to the New Testament that I missed?

Again, you’re arguing against a view of SS that neither I nor anyone in this argument is advocating for.

Your problem here is assuming that Tradition and Scripture would contradict eachother. The above passages, at first read, do disprove anything that I’m saying, they only support it.

No, you refuse to understand what I am saying. You are arguing against some stock view presented in Catholic Answers tracts. Read back through my posts on what I’ve said about Tradition. Read back through I what I said that the Church Fathers believed, what you disagreed with, what I said the Catholic Church believes, etc.

When you’re ready to discuss this with me, and not some phantom, come on back.

 

[bookgirl32]

I’m not sure what your point is. for example does the paragraph you just wrote interpret itself, well no it does not; unless I have someone read it to me(even then someone had to interpret it). and that is really what Sola scriptura is about; it is learning how to read things for myself instead of having someone read it to me. Granted this harder than just taking someone’s word on it, but I know what I believe and I know why I believe it.

You are touching on the exact point I’m talking about, this is what I argue against. I don’t believe God ever intended it to be harder rather than easier for us to understand His revelation! Why would He? He revealed an absolute truth, for the purpose of saving people, do you really think He purposely made it very possible to misconstrue all of His message?

I also don’t believe the Bible teaches this. I believe that yes, it praises people for examining scripture, it praises people for studying it, it praises scripture in and of itself. It nowhere says that, even on just fundamentals of faith (which it does not list, by the way), it is either the only source, or the MOST authoritative source.

you still don’t understand the difference between Sola and Solo. it’s not that I don’t hold to any Tradition;when reading the Bible you have to take into account context, and historical interpretation (Tradition ) it is the order of primacy I place on them. in the Bible I read eyewitness accounts of the Risen Christ; I have no reason to place this testimony under the authority of any man/woman alive today.

Why can no one see that the only difference between the Bible and the truth as revealed in Tradition (and I’m wondering if you’re still getting Tradition mixed up with traditions – Tradition is singular) is that the Bible is written and tradition is oral? It’s the same revelation, the same importance, the same authority, just in different communicative forms?

I’m also not telling you that you believe something you don’t in regards to “solo” “sola”. I’m merely saying that with personal interpretation, there will always be different interpretations. With different interpretations, there will always be “truth” conflicting, in one way or another, with Tradition. Therefore, it will always be the Bible that needs to be held up to a job that it doesn’t claim for itself, that of proving or disproving anything not seen to be specifically implied in it. Does that make sense?

The Church, however, in holding the God-given authority of interpretation, can see that neither Scripture nor Tradition disagree with the other, therefore no NEED AT ALL for one to hold supremecy over the other.

I’m not asking you to believe me, I’m not asking you to believe the CC (although it would be awesome if you did ), I’m just asking you to see the points of my argument.

By the way, I really enjoy discussing with you.

 

[bookgirl32]

Because, as that verse said, the Bereans were diligently searching through the Scriptures, those in Thessolonica, for example, were not.

I have to completey disagree with this. This is pure speculation. If you go over the the non-Christian relgions boards, you’ll see many of the same arguements as they had back then. I didn’t even know about them until visiting those boards, it’s pretty amazing.

So, then, is anyone that interprets differently than you NOT diligently searching now?

Note, you still didn’t answer the question of what the Bereans would have done if they found that something Paul said was NOT in Scripture.

Because they didn’t. Again, they had Paul and Silas’ teaching authority to guide them, the Jews did not accept it. I’m NOT arguing against scripture itself here. Do you really understand that?

Again, you’re arguing against a view of SS no one here is advocating. We are saying that Scripture is sufficient, not necessary. Else, those who could not read (or hear) could not be saved!

What you’re supporting here is not the Bereans “checking to scripture” necessarily, it’s the interpretive authority of a teacher. Which is what Paul and Silas were. Or, in the case of someone who was with the Bereans at the time but could not read, then one of the Bereans who was reading and passing info onto them. THIS is what Tradition is, orally passed on revelation. It is NOT a tool to interpret. That is the job of the Church.

Why do you keep thinking we’re out to get you and show that you don’t believe in the authority of Scripture? I already told you the value of tradition; it helps us interpret Scripture.

But if you have to check that interpretation with the supreme authority of scripture, then isn’t that a little circular?

I might have used this analogy already. Suppose I think Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov is a perfect novel. In terms of learning about those things which it tries to teach me about, it is sufficient. But that does not mean that I* must* read it to learn about those things, nor does it mean that I need not learn about Dostoevsky’s life, or the history of Russian lit, or the historical context of the time, or of how others have historically interpreted the novel in order to properly understand it.

I understand your argument here, I just think there are holes in it.

My disagreement is with the notion that Scripture does not contain all the truths of revelation.

Again, I said this to JTBT:

Why can no one see that the only difference between the Bible and the truth as revealed in Tradition (and I’m wondering if you’re still getting Tradition mixed up with traditions – Tradition is singular) is that the Bible is written and tradition is oral? It’s the same revelation, the same importance, the same authority, just in different communicative forms?

I’m also not telling you that you believe something you don’t in regards to “solo” “sola”. I’m merely saying that with personal interpretation, there will always be different interpretations. With different interpretations, there will always be “truth” conflicting, in one way or another, with Tradition. Therefore, it will always be the Bible that needs to be held up to a job that it doesn’t claim for itself, that of proving or disproving anything not seen to be specifically implied in it. Does that make sense?

The Church, however, in holding the God-given authority of interpretation, can see that neither Scripture nor Tradition disagree with the other, therefore no NEED AT ALL for one to hold supremecy over the other

No, you refuse to understand what I am saying. You are arguing against some stock view presented in Catholic Answers tracts. Read back through my posts on what I’ve said about Tradition. Read back through I what I said that the Church Fathers believed, what you disagreed with, what I said the Catholic Church believes, etc.

When you’re ready to discuss this with me, and not some phantom, come on back.

You think I’m getting what I’m saying from Catholic Answers tracts? I think what I’m saying is in there, yes, but that’s not where I got it. I got it from the Catholic Church. I love Catholic Answers, but I already knew what the tracts said before I got here.

I don’t think you understand what Tradition is. It is another form of the SAME revelation of God, not just a tool (or tools) created to help us interpret. But I see that if you don’t believe that it contains it’s own (not conflicting) revelation, and that it’s only an approvable method of interpreting scripture, where you think Sola Scriptura would make sense. What you’re seeing as Tradition is the interpretive authority of the Church, not Tradition.

I will go read more on the Church Fathers. But the same goes for interpretation of them (and they are NOT infallible revelation, by the way, as much as I agree with them).

 

[bookgirl32]

i think that in the essentials it does. I would agree with Augustine.

I’m going to do something you don’t expect me to here, and admit that I haven’t read much Augustine. In college, the Confessions, yes, but that was ten years ago.

But what I will say is that the Catholic Church has never proclaimed the Saints’ writings to be infallible. So, as much as I trust the Church in making him a saint, and would therefore assume he didn’t conflict with the Church, he is still just an infallible person.

But from reading this one quote, I get this:

Chapter 9.CHow We Should Proceed in Studying Scripture.

1. In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become.

First of all, the title says a lot. Augustine, I would assume, is speaking about studying scripture, not using it as a supreme authority over Tradition (which is not needed), or as a way to understand it outside of the Church’s interpretation.

For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life, to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.-Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)

I see how you can get, out of this passage, that Augustine thinks that we can infallibly interpret scripture in and of our own reading. I don’t get that (see differences in interpretation?), but I can see where you would. I, however, would like to read more, to put this in context.

 

[JTBT]

You are touching on the exact point I’m talking about, this is what I argue against.

are you arguing against the everyday Christian learning to read scripture? b/c that is what is sounds like.

I don’t believe God ever intended it to be harder rather than easier for us to understand His revelation! Why would He? He revealed an absolute truth, for the purpose of saving people, do you really think He purposely made it very possible to misconstrue all of His message? .

we are told to love God with not only our heart and soul, but also with our all of our Mind. I think this means we are not ment to be read to for our whole Chirstian life, we are ment to grow. can you think of a better way to love God with our Minds than to learn to read his word?

Mt 22:37 " `YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND

.’ as far as why it is hard; well if it was easy everyone would do it.

By the way, I really enjoy discussing with you.

] thanks, I’m having fun too.

 

[bookgirl32]

are you arguing against the everyday Christian learning to read scripture? b/c that is what is sounds like.

NO! Not at all. I’m arguing that God revealed ONE OBJECTIVE truth, and that He made it obvious. I’m not rejecting studying the Bible at all! I think that one thing many Catholics need to “catch up on” with Protestants is the amount of time spent reading and studying the Bible. And even personal interpretation isn’t necessarily bad in and of itself, it’s taking personal interpretation as infallible, and the subsequent differences and divisions that arise from this, I don’t think God intended that, at all. When there are different ideas about what a passage means, which you have to admit there are, I believe God gave us a means to be absolutely sure about what it does mean, outside of what we feel about it, or what we may want it to mean. You can’t deny that there are many different interpretations, and that they cannot all be right. The argument of the Church is that there is one absolute truth that was clearly revealed and made accessible to all. So I’m not arguing arguing against picking up your Bible and studying it, even completely on your own. I’m arguing against doing this, and then assuming that what you think is perfectly clear is what was really meant. If this had been the case, what would’ve been the reason for a Church to be established as the “pillar of truth”? You may argue that a Church, being the Body of Christ so to speak, was established. But if the Church was not the supreme authority on truth (notice I’m not saying it IS the Truth, but the authority on the interpretation fo it), what would be the point of calling it the “pillar of truth”? Why would scripture not be called the “pillar of truth”?

Some people believe that an invisible church is the “pillar” by way of the truth being out there somewhere, and the invisible church supports the existence of this truth. But then you have to go back to whether you believe that God fully revealed His truth objectively, and if He meant it to be clear? If you don’t think this is the case, then the above scenario might hold some water, but if you do, then the church, visible OR invisible, would have to have one obvious truth that it was upholding. When working off of personal interpretation, no one has any reference point to check anything to be true. Anyone can say that the Holy Spirit led them to this interpretation, so therefore it is true. But then who is anyone to know what is really truth, when there is no total and complete agreement?

we are told to love God with not only our heart and soul, but also with our all of our Mind. I think this means we are not ment to be read to for our whole Chirstian life, we are ment to grow. can you think of a better way to love God with our Minds than to learn to read his word?

I can’t think of a better way, I can think of equal ways. How is a person who cannot read supposed to fulfill what you have proposed above? There are far less illiterate people now than, say, in the middle ages, but there are still some. If they never learn to read, does that make them incapable of completely experiencing Christianity as God revealed it to us? I’m not relieving anyone of the responsibility to study scripture, I’m just proving a point. Everything in the Bible is true, just not the only truth. And everything in the Bible is necessary, just not the only necessity. And the Bible does not limit itself to being “read” to be fully understood. It can be “preached”, and be just as fully understood, b/c it’s truth is protected and interpreted by an infallible source. The words can never be “wrong”, but the interpretations can be very much so.

as far as why it is hard; well if it was easy everyone would do it.

] thanks, I’m having fun too.

Agreed here. I didn’t say it should be easy to study the Bible, I think it should be challenging. I think we should learn from it, I just don’t think we should trust our own opinions about it as infallible, does that make sense?

 

[bookgirl32]

SyCarl,

I read this quote from someone else here on the boards:

Be like St. Augustine, who said that if he had a problem with understanding Scripture the fault was in himself.

I still, as of this morning and my son just laying down for a nap, have yet to read up on my Augustine. Since you have, can you also corroborate this statement? I’ll look for it myself as well.

 

[JTBT]

But if the Church was not the supreme authority on truth (notice I’m not saying it IS the Truth, but the authority on the interpretation fo it), what would be the point of calling it the “pillar of truth”? Why would scripture not be called the “pillar of truth”?

I need some Biblical references for your claim here, please.

I can’t think of a better way, I can think of equal ways. How is a person who cannot read supposed to fulfill what you have proposed above?

Bible on CD I have the OT and the NT in my desk right now.

I’m just proving a point. Everything in the Bible is true, just not the only truth.

OK I agree

And everything in the Bible is necessary, just not the only necessity.

I think this is were our disagreement is. what is necessary, that cannot be found in scripture?

 

[davidv]

I need some Biblical references for your claim here, please.

It wasn’t a claim. It was a question that can be answered.

Bible on CD I have the OT and the NT in my desk right now.

What if you don’t have electricty? Or you lived before there were CDs.?

I think this is were our disagreement is. what is necessary, that cannot be found in scripture?

To participate at Mass on Sunday’s and Holy Days of Obligation.

 

[JTBT]

It wasn’t a claim. It was a question that can be answered.

what would’ve been the reason for a Church to be established as the “pillar of truth”?

there is a claim implied by the question, and I ask for Biblical proof of the “pillar of truth” before answering the question.

What if you don’t have electricty? Or you lived before there were CDs.?.

Calm down david it was a joke. and if you reread Bookgirls post she answered her own question.

To participate at Mass on Sunday’s and Holy Days of Obligation.

how are protestants in any kind of communion with Rome then?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

there is a claim implied by the question, and I ask for Biblical proof of the “pillar of truth” before answering the question.

I Timothy 3:15 - But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

[bookgirl32]

I need some Biblical references for your claim here, please.

This is my point exactly. The Bible doesn’t tell you that you do need them, you tell yourself that.

Bible on CD I have the OT and the NT in my desk right now.

Point taken, it was an illustration of a point.

I think this is were our disagreement is. what is necessary, that cannot be found in scripture?

Okay, but where does scripture list what is necessary?

 

[bookgirl32]

there is a claim implied by the question, and I ask for Biblical proof of the “pillar of truth” before answering the question.

1 Tim 3:15

Calm down david it was a joke. and if you reread Bookgirls post she answered her own question.

Now that he brings it up though, he does have a point.

how are protestants in any kind of communion with Rome then?

No, but the Sunday thing does apply, as far as it being the “Lord’s Day”.

 

[JTBT]

Now that he brings it up though, he does have a point.

you did answer your own question in your post, by preaching of course. how do we know if what he is preaching is right, well we check it against scripture. if we don’t know how we learn.

No, but the Sunday thing does apply, as far as it being the “Lord’s Day”.

I ask how are protestants in communion. if there are things that are necessary, but not in the Bible.

 

[JTBT]

This is my point exactly. The Bible doesn’t tell you that you do need them, you tell yourself that.

yes it does 1Th 5:21

 

[bookgirl32]

yes it does 1Th 5:21

Test everything; retain what is good.

Doesn’t say “to scripture” in there. Also, the context of the rest of the chapter gives quite a few other “hints”:

1Th5:Concerning times and seasons, brothers, you have no need for anything to be written to you.

This, of course, doesn’t mean to ignore the Bible, but I could interpret it that way if I wanted to, couldn’t I?

1Th512-13:We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you,
13
and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work.

Now what does that mean? I’m not claiming it as sole basis for the living authority of the Church, but it certainly couldn’t be used to argue against it either. It could very well be evidence of other authority by which to “test” something.