scripture alone!!!!

[Syele]

Do you think all protestants would believe in the inspiration of Scripture?

yes. I would agree that we all believe Scripture to be inspired and inerrant.

 

[lurdes]

Would you happen to have the name of this denomination?

Christ died for our sins and rose again and forgiveness of sins is possible only by what Christ has done.

I know the jw don’t believe it, they say Jesus is Michael

 

[lurdes]

mormons and jehovah’s witnesses are not Christian therefore do not fall under the umbrella of protestant.

oneness pentacostals believe in the deity of Christ (they just believe that it is ONLY Christ so i would put them on the fence of Christianity, but the statement that ALL protestants believe in the deity of Christ would still hold true).

now to address another issue:

let me begin to answer this with a question…
if all the catholics believe the exact same things, why are there a number of different rites within the church. why don’t they all worship the same way?

first off, not all protestants believe in scripture alone so one would have to assume right off the bat that you don’t really know the subject at hand. also, protestants would believe that we are all one church already. they don’t believe that we have to be one visible church all looking exactly the same.

augustine said, “in essentials, unity. in non-essentials, charity.” now we all (including catholics) might have different things we would put in the categories of essential and non-essential… but there are some things that we do all agree on and i would say it is the essentials. i think many catholics on this forum focus way too much on non-essentials, thinking them essential.

this also goes for protestant the always focusing in the non-essentials of the Catholic Church, you’re right I dont know much about protestant teaching that’s why I ask the question, my sister is a jw she believe in the bible alone and jet they’re way different then rest of the protestant churches, I also have another sister who is a non-denominational what ever that means and she believe in the bible alone and jet when they get together they can’t agreed in anything

 

[Namesake]

Well they cant be Catholic if they dont.

No true Scotsman?

 

[lurdes]

mormons and jehovah’s witnesses are not Christian therefore do not fall under the umbrella of protestant.
They do fall under this umbrella they protest against the one true Church and jw was founded by a protestant

oneness pentacostals believe in the deity of Christ (they just believe that it is ONLY Christ so i would put them on the fence of Christianity, but the statement that ALL protestants believe in the deity of Christ would still hold true).

now to address another issue:

let me begin to answer this with a question…
if all the catholics believe the exact same things, why are there a number of different rites within the church. why don’t they all worship the same way?

first off, not all protestants believe in scripture alone so one would have to assume right off the bat that you don’t really know the subject at hand. also, protestants would believe that we are all one church already. they don’t believe that we have to be one visible church all looking exactly the same.

augustine said, “in essentials, unity. in non-essentials, charity.” now we all (including catholics) might have different things we would put in the categories of essential and non-essential… but there are some things that we do all agree on and i would say it is the essentials. i think many catholics on this forum focus way too much on non-essentials, thinking them essential.

 

[guanophore]

Somethings are agreed upon protestants i.e. Christ is God and died for our sins and rose again. Other things there are differences of opinion.
No different than what you find in the catholic church on a number of issues.

Actually, it is different. Catholics have an objective standard (outside themselves) toward which each individual can look to assess themselves. Those that reject the Apostolic Tradition attempt to look into scripture for this objective standard, but since everyone interprets it differently, there is no single source.

 

[Publisher]

yes. I would agree that we all believe Scripture to be inspired and inerrant.

No, not all do. Scriptures are inspired…but not enerrant.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Somethings are agreed upon protestants i.e. Christ is God and died for our sins and rose again. Other things there are differences of opinion.
No different than what you find in the catholic church on a number of issues.

guanophore;
Actually, it is different. Catholics have an objective standard (outside themselves) toward which each individual can look to assess themselves. Those that reject the Apostolic Tradition attempt to look into scripture for this objective standard, but since everyone interprets it differently, there is no single source.

This still applies to catholics. Even if you have an “objective standard (outside themselves)” you still have catholics with different opinions and beliefs within the church itself. They interpret catholic doctrines differently also.

 

[Syele]

No, not all do. Scriptures are inspired…but not enerrant.

oh? Which parts are in error?

 

[bengal_fan]

oh? Which parts are in error?

his point isn’t the error factor. he is just saying that not all protestants believe in the inerrancy of scripture. it depends on how you define inerrancy.

for instance:
1.the synoptic gospels have Jesus dying on one day and the gospel of John puts his death on a different day of the week.

1. matthew says judas hung himself and luke (in the book of acts) says he fell. one says judas bought the field and the other says the pharisees did it.
2. two accounts of creation. each has a different name for God and a different order in which creation comes into being.
3. the new testament uses a verse from the old testament to show that the messiah would come from nazareth, but the verse quoted has nothing to do with the town of nazareth.

there are also some historical errors in the bible. if you mean by “inerrant” that there is not one historical, scientific, grammatical error, then you would be wrong. if you mean that as the bible teaches us about God, Jesus (God in the flesh), the nature of the world, the nature of man, heaven, hell, etc. it is inerrant. i would agree with you.

there would be those protestants who would go as far as to say, “the bible isn’t the word of God, it contains the word of God.” i don’t hold to that but there are the protestants who do and i believe that was the point of the statement.

 

[bengal_fan]

Sorry bengal, I reread my post I didnt think I came across to you that way, still dont. So I am sorry if that is what I portrayed to you, was not intentional.

i accept your apology and i also apologize if i was being too sensitive. it’s hard to tell tone on a forum.
Gabriel of 12;3369526:

St. Augustine is one of my Patron saints, I am read up on him. You are correct about how he dealt with heretics. But your mistaken about our same beliefs, they are the same. Please dont confuse arguments and opinions with doctrine beliefs.

augustine is one of my favorites as well. i cannot speak for your beliefs, but the catholic church does not hold to all of augustine’s beliefs. he vehemently believed in pre-destination and that grace alone (even apart from faith and works) is what saves us. this is not the teaching of the catholic church and i assumed your beliefs either. there are other things he taught which the church doesn’t hold to as well (he spoke against self-defense for one). it doesn’t attack the argument of the church as infallible but shows those were issues (at the time) the church seemed to care little about (non-essential) while augustine found the pre-destination issue pretty essential since that is why he disagreed with pelagius so much.

I dont claim to have the market on truth, My Lord Jesus does and he is Truth. Where the body of Jesus is there is the Catholic Church. But I thought we were discussing Sols Scriptura?

Peace and Love brother /B]

i agree with your statement, but that’s probably because i believe in the spiritual, universal (catholic) church and not a physical one.

yes, we are talking about scripture alone and i still maintain this thread was started upon the false premise that all protestants believe in scripture alone.

 

[Syele]

if you mean that as the bible teaches us about God, Jesus (God in the flesh), the nature of the world, the nature of man, heaven, hell, etc. it is inerrant. i would agree with you.

then you agree with me. If people aren’t sure what definition I mean, they should ask.

 

[Publisher]

his point isn’t the error factor. he is just saying that not all protestants believe in the inerrancy of scripture. it depends on how you define inerrancy.

for instance:
1.the synoptic gospels have Jesus dying on one day and the gospel of John puts his death on a different day of the week.

1. matthew says judas hung himself and luke (in the book of acts) says he fell. one says judas bought the field and the other says the pharisees did it.
2. two accounts of creation. each has a different name for God and a different order in which creation comes into being.
3. the new testament uses a verse from the old testament to show that the messiah would come from nazareth, but the verse quoted has nothing to do with the town of nazareth.

there are also some historical errors in the bible. if you mean by “inerrant” that there is not one historical, scientific, grammatical error, then you would be wrong. if you mean that as the bible teaches us about God, Jesus (God in the flesh), the nature of the world, the nature of man, heaven, hell, etc. it is inerrant. i would agree with you.

there would be those protestants who would go as far as to say, “the bible isn’t the word of God, it contains the word of God.” i don’t hold to that but there are the protestants who do and i believe that was the point of the statement.

Thank you for answering. Those who wish to believe in an “inerrant” collection of scripture…I have no problem with it…I do not accept it, nor do many Protestant groups.

I’m in the “group” that believes the scripture “contain” the word of God…the word of God is not something written on paper, but written on the heart…sometimes the word of God is spoken in that “Still small voice”…just because scripture is quoted doesn’t make the single verse the “word of God”. God’s word is “more” than printed pages.

When the prophets spoke concerning “the word of the Lord came to me and said…”, they were not repeating verbatim God’s words…but to those who do believe they were…I’m ok with it.

We do not have any originals of scriptures…so to say the originals are inerrant makes no difference…we don’t have the originals…we have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies.

 

[deb1]

Somethings are agreed upon protestants i.e. Christ is God and died for our sins and rose again. Other things there are differences of opinion.
No different than what you find in the catholic church on a number of issues.

Hey, if this is the main issue, then Protestants can all become Catholics because we believe that Jesus died for our sin and rose again.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Somethings are agreed upon protestants i.e. Christ is God and died for our sins and rose again. Other things there are differences of opinion.
No different than what you find in the catholic church on a number of issues.

deb1
Hey, if this is the main issue, then Protestants can all become Catholics because we believe that Jesus died for our sin and rose again.

Its the other doctrines in the catholic church that cloud this truth that makes this impossible.

 

[justasking4]

bengal_fan;3373891]

his point isn’t the error factor. he is just saying that not all protestants believe in the inerrancy of scripture. it depends on how you define inerrancy.

A good definition of inerrancy is without error. If God inspired Scripture then it follows it would be without error. This applies to the original writings.

for instance:
1.the synoptic gospels have Jesus dying on one day and the gospel of John puts his death on a different day of the week.

This can be explained by what it means to be 3 days and 3 nights in the grave. For one it is not necessary to have a full 72 hours for 3 days in the tomb.

1. matthew says judas hung himself and luke (in the book of acts) says he fell.

Both accounts are correct. After he hung himself his body fell to the rocks.

one says judas bought the field and the other says the pharisees did.

Would you happen to have the verse where Judas bought the field? The Pharisees did buy a field with the money he returned to them.

1. two accounts of creation. each has a different name for God and a different order in which creation comes into being.

Just because there may be 2 different names for God does not mean it’s a contradiction. The same goes for the order of creation. In chapter 1 you have a chronological order vs a topical order in chapter 2. In chapter 1 you have an outline of creation while in chapter 2 you have the details.

1. the new testament uses a verse from the old testament to show that the messiah would come from nazareth, but the verse quoted has nothing to do with the town of nazareth.

There are a number of solutions to this and it does not require necessarily a reference to the city itself but possibly to basic meaning of the word which means branch. There are other possibilities to consider before we can say there is an error.

there are also some historical errors in the bible.

Would you happen to have a couple of examples so we can examine them?

if you mean by “inerrant” that there is not one historical, scientific, grammatical error, then you would be wrong.

I would say this is true of the originals. The originals are without error.

if you mean that as the bible teaches us about God, Jesus (God in the flesh), the nature of the world, the nature of man, heaven, hell, etc. it is inerrant. i would agree with you.

why would you believe these things as true if there are errors on the earthly side? If the authors made errors in their reporting on history side then we really can’t have much confidence on the spiritual side.

there would be those protestants who would go as far as to say, “the bible isn’t the word of God, it contains the word of God.”
i don’t hold to that but there are the protestants who do and i believe that was the point of the statement.

 

[deb1]

Its the other doctrines in the catholic church that cloud this truth that makes this impossible.

There are no doctrines in the Catholic Church that cloud our belief that Christ is God, died and rose again for our sins. This is an issue that both Protestant and Catholics agree.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

yes, we are talking about scripture alone and i still maintain this thread was started upon the false premise that all protestants believe in scripture alone.

Well its hard to say today, When the protestant reformers began their break away from Catholicism, did not these doctrines get defined as Scripture alone and or Sola fide? So one protestant believes in Scripture alone, another may believe in Sola fide. So I would agree with you , not all protestants believe in scripture alone theology.

Although I would like to point out, that when they broke away from the Catholic church, they lost their Identity and authority, so I am of the opinion they looked to scripture as there sole authority, and or their faith in Jesus is what saves them. Thus the Prostestant revolt.

Peace

 

[bengal_fan]

A good definition of inerrancy is without error. If God inspired Scripture then it follows it would be without error. This applies to the original writings…

i didn’t want to quote your entire post. you are using a very thomist approach to your reading of scripture. it seems you must find a way for it all to work together. sometimes it just doesn’t. we can say it depends on point of view (i.e. the judas’ death in the NT) or that they are different accounts of the same thing (creation) or a reinterpretation of the words (nazareth/branch). you can do that if you want… i don’t have a problem with that and neither would the others who disagree with you. just understand that you could be wrong. i also don’t expect the writers to be history or science experts and i don’t think God really cared to communicate historical or scientific fact to us but spiritual truth. by your thinking, the earth is only 6,000 years old and the sun revolves around the earth. that is fine with me if you believe that but it makes me think you place your faith in a book rather than on God. i believe that everything the bible says is true but not fact. the bible does not hold up to history exactly. there are many things that have helped historians and many others that have been shown to not exactly be right.

all that to say that you can’t say all protestants believe the bible to be inerrant the same way you believe it to be.

you asked for examples of not being historically accurate. one is the gospel of luke talks about events happening during the reign of one of the herods but the way matthew has it, that herod is already dead. i am not really wanting to debate all this stuff and i’m sure you have an answer to the discrepancies, but know that not everyone (including historians and scientist… even Christian ones) accept your answers because they find them lacking.

 

[bengal_fan]

Although I would like to point out, that when they broke away from the Catholic church, they lost their Identity and authority

that is in your and the RCC’s opinion. the protestants would argue with you on that one.

so I am of the opinion they looked to scripture as there sole authority, and or their faith in Jesus is what saves them. Thus the Prostestant revolt.

Peace

actually, the people that followed the leaders relied upon the leaders’ interpretations not their own so they didn’t really believe in sola scriptura. they believed in prima scriptura… that all teachings are subject to scripture but that we don’t only teach scripture.

i would argue that in practice, most catholic apologists (especially the protestant converts) hold to prima scriptura because they say repeatedly and try to show how all of the teachings of the magisterium are found in scripture. hence they are putting the magisterium’s teachings under scripture.