The church of "just me and my bible"

[57Bill]

Recently I have meant 2 different Protestants that don’t go to any church because all they need is the bible and they can interprate it completely on thier own. Is this common?

After talking to both of them on different occasions I found thier theology other than recognizing the trinity didn’t fit anywhere

One went on to say Paul preaches a different salvation than the gospels and there 2 two types of salvation

Gotta be pretty lonely…

MATT 18:20

(sorry if posted but I am thread weary)

 

[mackbrislawn]

How many of those heresies came from priests and bishops? How many came before the New Testament was compiled? How many came about before the Bible was widely available to the lay person? Almost all of them. So it’s hard to say the “me and my Bible” crowd are responsible for much of the wrong teachings the church has faced.
So. How is the correct interpretation of I Corinthians 4:6 an unclear passage,purposefully chosen, and taken out of context, critical for our salvation. Why couldn’t he have chosen I Corinthians 15:3-5, Verses like this make doctrine for salvation clear. More complicated Scriptures are dissected by theologians and debated by mature Christians, but God will honor the sincere heart, prayerfully reading Scriptures in search of the truth.

True. Many heresies came from priests and bishops. A well known example is Arius who was a bishop. And indeed, many heresies came before the New Testament was compiled. Examples are the Docetists and Gnostics, who are preached against in the New Testament itself. In fact, it was heresies such as the Marcionite heresy that prompted the idea of the need for a New Testament canon in the first place. Early divergent Christianities had their own sets of scripture so it became necessary to determine which ones were authoritative for true Christians and which were not.

Some early Christian writers (‘Early Church Fathers’) wrote about how heretics were using scripture to promote their false teachings. So yes, even back then there were heretics who were taking apostolic writings and twisting them.

An interesting point is that some of the early writers thought it was not necessary to rebut the heretics directly from scripture, since scripture didn’t belong to them in the first place. The heretics had stolen scripture from the true Christians and so how could the heretics possibly be in a position to understand them anyway? The Holy Spirit guides the true Christians, not the false ones.

This brings up this quote:

First of all, Pentecostals and Seventh Day Adventists are Christians. JWs and Mormons were purposefully founded not by a sincere religious leader trying to discern God’s message from Scripture, but by men seeking power and wealth. They don’t look to the Bible but to other sources of authority they consider equal to the Bible.
The eunuch is not a great example. He was a foreigner reading a single book of prophecy without benefit of the rest of the Bible, so someone had to relate to him how Isaiah was fulfilled in Jesus. We have that information now.

The first paragraph I really agree with. (Although I don’t know if Walter Martin would consider Seventh Day Adventists Christian or not, but maybe a cult.)

The second paragraph makes a couple of good points, that the eunuch was a foreigner, and he would not be expected to know how to understand. We would not consider it proper for a Gentile to take some scrolls of the Torah and Old Testament and read them and understand them and then declare himself a true Israelite and the original ones false.

Of course, that is how Catholics regard Protestants. Protestants are foreigners who have co-opted the scriptures of the true Christians (Catholics) and now claim that the original Christians (Catholics) are really false. It’s true, the original reformers started out as Catholics, but they purposefully put themselves outside of the church, made themselves foreigners, so were no longer under the protection of the Holy Spirit. And that is true of subsequent Protestants. They are like the Ethiopian eunuch.

The second good point is that the eunuch had only one scroll. This is because the original scriptures came on individual scrolls. A whole mess of them. Scripture was not bound under one codex cover as today. This single-binding codex format is a man-made tradition. The God-given format was individual scrolls, that had to be read in a linear fashion, a sequential access fashion, not the man-made random access fashion of today.

In my opinion this can lead to an abuse of scripture. In the beginning one had to really know scripture in order to cross-correlate different verses. It had to be done in one’s head. But now, any amateur or foreigner can do that by use of verse and chapter numbers and hold one finger in Genesis and one finger in Revelation. It’s just too easy.

 

[stevekehl]

Indeed many heresies have popped up over the centuries before the Bible. However, today they do happen because of “me and my Bible” to deny it is just plain foolish.

Such as?

 

[stevekehl]

A heresy is a heresy, would a heresy by a priest and/or a bishop justify a heresy from someone else? This sounds like: How come you arrested me for selling drugs? Other cops sell drugs too… Doesn’t really make a lot of sense…

You’ve missed the forest for a few trees. The majority of heresies came from people trained and sustained by the church, not from “me and my Bible” people.

Well, that should be easy to find. Draw a line from 397AD and count them backwards. You know in 397AD The Catholic Church received and discern the New Testament with the help of the Holy Spirit

Yes, after church taught men started writing a bunch of heretical books passing them off as originals by the apostles.

Again, easy to draw a line. In 1456, Gutenberg Press printed the first version of the Bible, in Latin. What? The Catholic Church printed the Bible before the Protestants! Nah… . After this, you would have to research the literacy rate for each individual country in regards to its translated version of the Bible. It makes no difference if I speak English but doesn’t know how to read/write it and I see a Bible in English… It’s going to look Latin to me anyway.

Still not widely available to the lay person. That comes about 350 years later in America. The point being that as much as the personal interpretation of Scripture is blamed for heresies, the vast majority came from within the Church trained, church leading clerics

Who is saying that the “me and my Bible” crowd is responsible for much of the teachings the church has faced?

Isaiah 45-9 and Nicea 325

You tell me:
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%204:6&version=RSVCE;NIV;KJV;ESV;NLT

Interesting, Paul says don’t go beyond what is written, like traditions.

Would you like the Bible to be only those verses? If you want to keep it simple that’s between you and God. However, we grow in the Faith as the Lord draws us closer to Him. He wants a relationship, does He not? Or are we eat milk and cookies for the rest of our lives? (Not that there’s absolutely anything wrong with that )

If “milk and cookies” is the intellectual level of the Christian then yes. My argument was, can someone on a deserted island with only a Bible come to a saving knowledge of Jesus. My answer is yes. That person doesn’t need a PhD in theology to understand the Bible

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Another interesting verse. Translated from Greek, the word we call church really means community, so the community of believers is the pillar and bulwark of truth. Also, I am leery of doctrine based on one verse.

 

[stevekehl]

The enuch is not a great example? The rest of the Bible? Tell me what the rest of the Bible consisted of during the 1st century?

The eunuch is not a great example to try to refute my argument. The person on the island has the whole Bible, the eunuch had one book. On top of that, it was a book of prophesy, which can be difficult to understand. The eunuch was a foreigner, possibly ignorant of Jewish customs, phrases, symbolism, etc… used in Isaiah. Had the eunuch access to the New Testament, which the guy on the island would have, and time, which the guy on the island would have, he would have come to a saving knowledge of Jesus, just as the guy on the island would as well. The eunuch is a great example of baptism by immersion though. Any wealth traveler in Gaza would have jars of water that could be poured over the head. Instead, they both went down into the pool of water by the road.

What guidance lead the church to offer indulgences? First of all, do you even understand indulgences?

You answer my question, then I’ll answer yours.

 

[stevekehl]

True. Many heresies came from priests and bishops. A well known example is Arius who was a bishop. And indeed, many heresies came before the New Testament was compiled. Examples are the Docetists and Gnostics, who are preached against in the New Testament itself. In fact, it was heresies such as the Marcionite heresy that prompted the idea of the need for a New Testament canon in the first place. Early divergent Christianities had their own sets of scripture so it became necessary to determine which ones were authoritative for true Christians and which were not.

 

[Porknpie]

I don’t consider Catholics to be false Christians. I don’t agree with much of the doctrine, like do it our way of go to hell.

Steve, the early Christian church…which was the early Catholic Church, would have thought of you as being a heretic, if you were not in the Catholic Church, the Church founded by Christ. Related to this heretical comment…the early Church clearly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist…and that apostolic teaching is clearly understood through Christ’s words in John 6.

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.** Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, **or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church.…” Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know haw 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’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).

"[T]he Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. **And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, **the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).

“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life. Amen.” Apostles Creed (A.D. 360).

“**Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; **while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same.” Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393).

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life…–not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations…so does her authority…the succession of priests…[a]nd so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church…Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church…**For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church…for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; **and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you.” Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397).