"Why are there so many different Christian interpretations? If all Christians have th

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

I didn’t say that all Protestants do that.

You said, “among protestants,” no qualifier.

To my way of thinking, there is very little difference between Martin Luther and Joseph Smith - both were equally innovative.

That statement is one of the reasons why I find you, and your way of thinking, amusing.

You can watch Jerry Falwell videos for yourself, and you can read Campus Crusade tracts for yourself. I leave it to you to do the research - as far as I know, these things aren’t on-line. But Jerry Falwell and Campus Crusade are as close as you’ll ever get to a unified Protestant statement of doctrines, and yes, they believe that the Bible (ink and paper) is the Word of God, Jesus Christ - not just teaches Him, but is Him.

That’s amusing as well.

I’ve not made any assertions concerning Falwell, Campus Crusade for Christ, or that "many protestants believe that the Word made Flesh = the Bible".

You have; you continue to make that claim without support for it.

 

[SusanL]

You said, “among protestants,” no qualifier.

So JMCrae was correct then. He didn’t say “all” like you said he did.

That statement is one of the reasons why I find you, and your way of thinking, amusing.
That’s amusing as well.

I’ve not made any assertions concerning Falwell, Campus Crusade for Christ, or that "many protestants believe that the Word made Flesh = the Bible".

You have; you continue to make that claim without support for it.

Sandusky, he said that the information is not online to his knowledge but he has told you where you can find it. I suggest that he has made that claim and supported it. You just don’t want to accept it.

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky, he said that the information is not online to his knowledge but he has told you where you can find it. I suggest that he has made that claim and supported it. You just don’t want to accept it.

It’s absurd to claim that Falwell, and CCC do not have websites. I didn’t care to push it; however, since you buy his drivel, Susan, here you go Mcrae; support your claim, and you can help him, if you’d like, Susan.

Jerry Falwell’s website statement on who is Christ?

Campus Crusade for Christ’s statement of faith on their website.

Where do either of those two teach that the "The Word made Flesh = The Bible"?

(By the way, it took me all of 30 seconds to find both websites, and those statements.
And, I’ve not read either of them, that’s how confident I am that what Mcrae is saying is drivel.)

 

[dessert]

Scripture says there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). This passage emphasizes the unity that should exist in the Body of Christ as we are indwelt by “one Spirit” (verse 4). In verse 3, Paul makes an appeal to humility, meekness, patience, and love—all which are necessary to preserve unity. According to 1 Corinthians 2:10-13, the Holy Spirit knows the mind of God (verse 11), which He reveals (verse 10) and teaches (verse 13) to those whom He indwells. This activity of the Holy Spirit is called illumination.

In a perfect world, every believer would dutifully study the Bible (2 Timothy 2:15) in prayerful dependence upon the Holy Spirit’s illumination. Alas, this is not a perfect world. Not everyone who possesses the Holy Spirit actually listens to the Holy Spirit. There are Christians who grieve Him (Ephesians 4:30). Ask any educator: even the best classroom teacher has his share of wayward students who seem to resist learning, no matter what the teacher does. So, one reason that different people have different interpretations of the Bible is simply that some do not listen to the Teacher. Here are some other reasons for the wide divergence of beliefs among those who teach the Bible:

see next post

Living an examplerary life is one of the best teachers and when you find someone like that do as he does.
If I talk about how much I believe in;ie; recycling but continue to throw all plastic cans and papers recyclable material away or burn it all that shows I don’t really believe what I am saying because I am not living it.
ie; some may only recycle plastic or all or only aluminon cans because it brings them a profit.
some may recycle to give the proceeds to charity as they are giving to others
some people pic and choose what they want to believe.
Some need an experience to be the teacher like for instance be on the receiving end of getting the money from the cans to get your next meal.
Or visit an inner city where people are sleepingin the streets to appreciate your small 1 bed apartment which now seems very livable.
People you are talking about are somewhat self centered and need to get out and open their eyes and see as you say and their ears and hear God in their everyday walk even when they are in church they can see if they want to God Bless You
Dessert

 

[deb216]

ncgolf:

You bring up something I still do not understand. What is the result when 2 private interpreters disagree on a particular passage. Obviously this happens as it is title of the thread. Both sincerly and earnestly searching for truth but neither reaching the same conclusion and maybe differing vastly not merely quibbling.

Hi, Im back and can now answer this part of your question. Either both are wrong or one is wrong and the other cannot or will not admit that they are wrong based on the reasons in my OP.

Obviously one or both is wrong. The problem is that both believe they are right. You believe you are right, don’t you? You cling to your understanding of the truth and cannot fathom the possibility that you may be wrong. You are so convinced that you are right that you have wagered your eternal soul on it.

Every person who believes that they are right will show you the scriptures that support their false point of view. Each will claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. If you do not agree with them, you are wrong.

Your list of reasons do not explain why people interpret the Bible differently.

#1. Belief is not defined by a “change of heart.” It is defined by faith. Surely people who have not known God need to turn away from their lives of sin or vice, but what about those who have always known and accepted Him? What about those who, because of their faith, have always lived a righteous life? Are they unbelievers because they don’t meet your limited understanding? Are they unbelievers because they were raised by loving parents who taught them to know God from the cradle? Since “change of heart” is defined by a reversal of feelings, a person would first have to deny God before they could embrace Him. This is illogical.

#2. Failure to interpret the Bible is not due to a lack of training. As far as I know, most legitimate churches require their ministers to be educated. They go to college or seminaries where they spend a significant portion of their lives reading the scriptures. Theologians from every denomination could recite chapter and verse and still disagree with each other. Lack of agreement does not stem from a lack of training. This, too, is illogical.

#3. Hermeneutics. Big word you toss out there. Do you truly understand it? Do you know that people can apply good hermeneutics and still disagree in interpretation? Protestant hermeneutics are no more valid than Jewish or Catholic hermeneutics. Again, this is illogical, especially in light of the fact that sola scriptura is dependent upon the idea that the Bible is perspicuous. How clear can it be if you need science to interpret it?

#4. Ignorance of the whole Word would lead to poor interpretation, but those who are not ignorant of the whole Word still disagree. Then what?

#5 This is the only reason that has the most truth in it. Selfishness and pride do cause people to interpret the Bible incorrectly. Now tell me who the charlatans are.

#6 is subjective and moot. There is truth to the reason, but no way to determine what the truth is. Anyone who claims to interpret scripture would likewise claim to be a mature Christian. We interpret scripture differently. Are you mature? Are you more mature than I? How would you know? Are your teachers more mature than mine? How would you know? What is the standard by which maturity is measured?

#7. Tradition, your petitio principii fallacy. You accept that tradition is the reason that people misinterpret scripture because you reject tradition. Yet, the churches who follow apostolic tradition find support for it in the scriptures. The conclusion cannot be established in the premise simply because you want it to be. That you reject tradition does not render your interpretation more accurate, especially if the rejection is due to a false interpretation. Ergo, your logic is flawed.

The omniscient God who loves us and knows us better than we know ourselves would not have wanted us to be led astray. He would not have left us in a state of perpetual chaos. But then, He didn’t. He gave the keys to the kingdom, and the authority to use them, to Peter. One voice. One Church. One shepherd to feed His sheep.

The reason why there is a wide divergence of beliefs among those who teach the Bible is that sola scriptura made shepherds of the sheep. They lead themselves. They feed themselves. They have gone astray.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Obviously one or both is wrong. The problem is that both believe they are right. You believe you are right, don’t you? You cling to your understanding of the truth and cannot fathom the possibility that you may be wrong. You are so convinced that you are right that you have wagered your eternal soul on it.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I had to split the response it was too long

#4. Ignorance of the whole Word would lead to poor interpretation, but those who are not ignorant of the whole Word still disagree. Then what?

Yes, probably where some of the other points come in. You know these 7 points can all mix together. It doesnt have to be either/or.

#5 This is the only reason that has the most truth in it. Selfishness and pride do cause people to interpret the Bible incorrectly. Now tell me who the charlatans are.

Unfortunately we all have this problem

6 is subjective and moot. There is truth to the reason, but no way to determine what the truth is. Anyone who claims to interpret scripture would likewise claim to be a mature Christian. We interpret scripture differently. Are you mature? Are you more mature than I? How would you know? Are your teachers more mature than mine? How would you know? What is the standard by which maturity is measured?

I would not know if Im more mature then you regarding scripture. This simply means that you have studied much and understand much about the bible. God wants us to do this. He does not want us to stay babe’s in understanding His truth.
Eph 4:11–16 ------ vs. 14That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

James 1: 5—6 We are suppose to ask for wisdom so we can understand more of God’s Word hence grow in our Christian walk hence become moremature in understanding God’s Word.
For example, I knew very little 3 years ago because I was not studying the bible, therefore was not growing in Christ. I have now been studying the bible almost 4 years and have grown so much that I can even help other people. I never thought that possible, but the more I learn and study the more His Word becomes clear to me.Obviously the HS is there guiding me

#7. Tradition, your petitio principii fallacy. You accept that tradition is the reason that people misinterpret scripture because you reject tradition. Yet, the churches who follow apostolic tradition find support for it in the scriptures. The conclusion cannot be established in the premise simply because you want it to be. That you reject tradition does not render your interpretation more accurate, especially if the rejection is due to a false interpretation. Ergo, your logic is flawed.

We all have tradition. Some just put it above scripture and some judge it by scripture.

The reason why there is a wide divergence of beliefs among those who teach the Bible is that sola scriptura made shepherds of the sheep. They lead themselves. They feed themselves. They have gone astray.

Well, no, we do have leaders in our church that should be leading us and teaching us. My minister does a great job as does many out there Im sure. He also left us the bible for instruction on how to be saved and how to live a Godly life

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Living an examplerary life is one of the best teachers and when you find someone like that do as he does.
If I talk about how much I believe in;ie; recycling but continue to throw all plastic cans and papers recyclable material away or burn it all that shows I don’t really believe what I am saying because I am not living it.
ie; some may only recycle plastic or all or only aluminon cans because it brings them a profit.
some may recycle to give the proceeds to charity as they are giving to others
some people pic and choose what they want to believe.
Some need an experience to be the teacher like for instance be on the receiving end of getting the money from the cans to get your next meal.
Or visit an inner city where people are sleepingin the streets to appreciate your small 1 bed apartment which now seems very livable.
People you are talking about are somewhat self centered and need to get out and open their eyes and see as you say and their ears and hear God in their everyday walk even when they are in church they can see if they want to God Bless You
Dessert

 

[RNRobert]

To you they are false churches anyway, so why do you care what they do? If you truly care about them, then why aren’t you evangelizing them, and me, more strongly concerning the Gospel, urging me to repent and believe in Christ instead of doing what you are doing; namely, urging me to join your Church as if that’s what will save me.

I care because they twist and distort Scripture and lead others to destruction. The sacred writers seem to take a similar dim view of such groups.
As for asking others to become Catholic, I do this because I believe it is the church Christ founded. I recall hearing Billy Graham and other Protestant evangelists who tell their listeners “If you’ve accepted Chirst as your personal Savior, join a good Bible believing church.” Fine and dandy, but which one? There are a lot of churches that “believe the Bible,” but how does one know which one teaches it correctly? This was the dilemma I faced as a new believer.
By the way, Catholics do preach the Gospel, every day in fact!

Can there be found scriptures that teach the opposite of any of the doctrines of your church? Many say, “there are.”

Are there Scriptures that seem to contradict church teaching? Perhaps. However the JWs, Mormons and others claim doctrines believed by Protestants (the Trinity, divinity of Jesus) are contradicted by Scripture. And many non-Christians say that Scripture contradicts itself. So who is one to believe?

No one can know 100% of the truth, and that is not relativism, but is due to our humanness, our, finiteism, if you will, and the fact that God has not revealed everything (Dt 29:29). So, what’s your problem with that statement?

In an earlier post you commented that I seem frustrated. I am, because people who will deny the ability to the Church to teach infallibly will in the next breath insist that the Scriptures (which are a product of the church) are infallible! :banghead: The Bible is the work of human hands (inspired by the Holy Spirit, yes, but the work of men nonetheless). Jesus did not write a word of Scripture. When the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles at Pentecost, He did not drop pocket New Testaments in their laps. No, the Holy Spirit gave them the power to preach and teach. I hope they were able to do it infallibly since the early Christians had no New Testament to go by. Let me reiterate that:

[sign]THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH HAD NO NEW TESTAMENT[/sign]

The only thing the first Christians had to go on as to the life, teaching, passion and resurrection of Jesus was the word of mouth testimonies of the Apostles. The early church was saving souls, setting doctrine, disciplining members, (btw, I wonder what the Galatians thought of Paul’s epistle to them: were they upset because Paul expected them to “follow blindly” and were not being allowed to “think for themselves?”) etc., for at least a decade before anything of what we know as the New Testament was written, and the writing of the books of the NT canon took place over a period of several decades. They were generally not written to all believers, but usually to a specific church (and in some cases, to a specific individual. After the death of the Apostles, the writings were collected, copied and circulated throughout the churches and read in their services. But there was no universal agreement as to the canon. The Muratorian fragment in the 2nd century only lists 22 books as canonical. Other lists added books that are no longer included. It wasn’t until the end of the 4th century that the canon as we know it was settled. BTW, how do you know that there are supposed to be 27 books? Perhaps the Muratorian fragment shows the correct canon. Perhaps some books were left out? You know, when I was a new Christian I had a CEV Bible with a study guide. One of the chapters in the study guide was titled “No loose canons” and it said how early Christians “weighed all the books carefully” to make sure only the correct ones were made part of the New Testament. The thing is, I never bothered to ask myself “who were these Christians?” “What authority did they have to say which books were the New Testament and which weren’t?” If I had, I would have become Catholic a heluva lot sooner!

Continued…

 

[RNRobert]

IOW, your logic demands that there be an infallible interpreter in the form of a person here on earth; your logic is not alone in that demand, but is a logic shared by other groups as well, and each one of those groups claims to have the infallible interpreter.

As I showed above, the church existed before the New Testament, not the other way around. When I was a new Christian, it was just me and the Bible. I didn’t know anything about church history, theology, the culture or languages of the first century, etc. But, I knew in my heart of hearts that the original church that Jesus and His Apostles founded must still exist to this day. So, out of all the present day churches, which is the real church, and which are merely pretenders.

No, I’m not saying that at all; the Holy Spirit cannot teach error; He knows those whom the Father has given the Son, and He teaches them truth; One body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, remember?

Amen! And where can the One body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism (if I said ‘should’ instead of ‘is,’ in a previous post, my bad)be found? Hint: its not in any of the Protestant churches (yes there are dissenters in the Catholic Church, but we see from Scripture itself that it will always be so, and in any case the Catholic Church is more unified than what I find in Protestantism).

 

[Kay_Cee]

Hi,

Sorry I shocked you. I am following the truth even though I know you think differently. I am following Jesus Christ and his commands in the bible, as are you. I just happen to be doing it in a different church.

I will listen to your side if you would just put it out there instead of all these questions.

God Bless

Questioning is the way I was doing it.

 

[SusanL]

It’s absurd to claim that Falwell, and CCC do not have websites. I didn’t care to push it; however, since you buy his drivel, Susan, here you go Mcrae; support your claim, and you can help him, if you’d like, Susan.

Jerry Falwell’s website statement on who is Christ?

Campus Crusade for Christ’s statement of faith on their website.

Where do either of those two teach that the "The Word made Flesh = The Bible"?

(By the way, it took me all of 30 seconds to find both websites, and those statements.
And, I’ve not read either of them, that’s how confident I am that what Mcrae is saying is drivel.)

There you go again. He didn’t say that they didn’t have websites. He said that the information was elsewhere. And as far as you being confident: you’re not willing to read something to prove your point??? Boloney. You didn’t want to bother.

This has become the “Catholics must be wrong at all costs” thread. I do not believe that you are truly interested in finding the truth. You are not open to the Holy Spirit and I say that not because you say that we’re wrong. I say that because of your attitude. I don’t find this in ALLFORHIM’s posts. I think that she is open to the Holy Spirit. Her attitude is different. More of Christ’s love. The Holy Spirit is working in you. Is the Holy Spirit working in you?

I will let JMCrae discuss his post. I just find your “argumentative at all costs” posts to be troublesome.

I have to go. Kids are pulling me.

 

[sandusky]

RNRobert:

As for asking others to become Catholic, I do this because I believe it is the church Christ founded.

Church affiliation does not equal salvation.

In fact, sitting in a church makes one a saved Christian, as much as sitting in a garage makes one a car. And, sitting in the wrong church (correction: false church) compounds the problem.

RNRobert:

By the way, Catholics do preach the Gospel, every day in fact!

How?

RNRobert:

Are there Scriptures that seem to contradict church teaching? Perhaps. However the JWs, Mormons and others claim doctrines believed by Protestants (the Trinity, divinity of Jesus) are contradicted by Scripture. And many non-Christians say that Scripture contradicts itself. So who is one to believe?

JWs and Mormons deny the trinity and the divinity of Christ.

RNRobert:

In an earlier post you commented that I seem frustrated. I am, because people who will deny the ability to the Church to teach infallibly will in the next breath insist that the Scriptures (which are a product of the church) are infallible!

Your assumption that an infallible scripture requires an infallible teacher is false; it is your logic that demands an infallible interpreter; the ECFs didn’t demand one; as I said before, your church is one of many claiming to have the infallible interpreter.

RNRobert:

The Bible is the work of human hands (inspired by the Holy Spirit, yes, but the work of men nonetheless).

Doubts?

RNRobert:

Jesus did not write a word of Scripture.

What does that have to do with anything?

RNRobert:

When the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles at Pentecost, He did not drop pocket New Testaments in their laps. No, the Holy Spirit gave them the power to preach and teach. I hope they were able to do it infallibly since the early Christians had no New Testament to go by. Let me reiterate that:

Earlier I posted that Paul told Timothy that the OT was able to lead one to salvation; the New was in the works, and the writers knew they were writing scripture (2 Pet 3:16).

RNRobert:

The only thing the first Christians had to go on as to the life, teaching, passion and resurrection of Jesus was the word of mouth testimonies of the Apostles.

Don’t forget the OT.

(btw, I wonder what the Galatians thought of Paul’s epistle to them: were they upset because Paul expected them to “follow blindly” and were not being allowed to “think for themselves?” ) etc.

As phrased, your question makes no sense; blindly follow who? Paul’s upset was that the Galatians were thinking for themselves, and that in so doing, they were being seduced away from the gospel of grace by those who were teaching a gospel of works.

Salvation has always been by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone—eternally; as God does not change, so too does His gospel not change; God preached His gospel of grace to Abraham as Paul states (Gen 12:3; cf Gal 3:8) before Abe was circumsized, and before the law—a gospel of grace, not works.

The Galatians had that scripture that was able to lead them to salvation in the form of the OT, and it taught salvation by grace alone, faith alone, God alone, and they had the teachings of the apostle in the form of oral, and written teaching, but stupidly, they were being led away from grace, and back to works.

RNRobert:

As I showed above, the church existed before the New Testament, not the other way around.

Get a new argument. The church that you believe in today, is not the church of the NT. Read the NT, you’ll see the difference.

Besides, how can something exist before that which inaugurates it?

Get a new argument.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Church affiliation does not equal salvation.

In fact, sitting in a church makes one a saved Christian, as much as sitting in a garage makes one a car. And, sitting in the wrong church compounds the problem.

It’s up to the individual to make the effort to education themselves in Christianity and see where they are being called to worship God. That’s all that any of us can do.
Search long and hard enough and you will eventually find a place to call “home”.

 

[sandusky]

SusanL:

There you go again. He didn’t say that they didn’t have websites. He said that the information was elsewhere. And as far as you being confident: you’re not willing to read something to prove your point??? Boloney. You didn’t want to bother.

C’mon, Susan, you don’t get it because you are out in left field; come closer.

I don’t have to prove the point because I didn’t make the point. It was Jmcrae who said that many protestants believe that The Word made Flesh = The Bible.

I didn’t make that assertion, Jmcrae did; why do you expect that I should have to prove it false? Until it is proven, it is false.

I found the sources for you and Jmcrae; now you can read them and find support for his assertions. I didn’t read the links because that would be silly of me; I know that there is no support for his claims against those two organizations; kapeesh?

SusanL:

This has become the “Catholics must be wrong at all costs” thread. I do not believe that you are truly interested in finding the truth. You are not open to the Holy Spirit and I say that not because you say that we’re wrong. I say that because of your attitude. I don’t find this in ALLFORHIM’s posts. I think that she is open to the Holy Spirit. Her attitude is different. More of Christ’s love. The Holy Spirit is working in you. Is the Holy Spirit working in you?

:crying:

 

[SusanL]

:crying:

Sandusky, your bad attitude is showing again. You do not know how to debate without it. And what church do you belong to again?

 

[dessert]

Well let me continue and add to my comparisons.
When I want to know about recycling I go to the how to book on it and learn what to do, Our city fathers provide us with this every year no matter what and it stays mostly the same but does change on occasion, And what we need to know for our purpose. such as we may not have any plastic in our house only cans goofy huh? well we go to the can list and see what are the correct procedures.

The bible was written to set down the laws as was passed down through apostolic succesion.
The Catholic church wrote the catechism based on these and interprets these accordingly.
Now I may not need to read all the rules in the guidelines as they may not pertain to me now as when I did not have any (plastic in my house ) but the guidlines are there and I can show them to anyone whom it does pertain to because these guidlines are universal and ARE scriptural and can be understood. Now maybe some one without the knowledge of the Holy Spirit doesn’t comprehend that they understand but this doesnot change the guidlines and rules as stated.

And maybe I will get plastic in my house so I am glad I can refer to the manuel.
It is a good thing it is not in Spanish as I can not understand Spanish and a good thing I don’t have to learn it as I am too old.

The bible is only in one language and that is the language of the Holy spirit which was taught to the apostles and handed to the Catholic church making the authority passed on.

If we are interpreting it without the RCC we are like saying we know better than the Church and the Faith we have.May God Bless you in your search. Dessert

 

[Researcher]

sandusky: I’ve been away for awhile. Below are my answers to your questions.

So then, you gathered data, including the scripture; you examined that data, including the scripture, and you relied upon the Holy Spirit, and after all of that the choice that made the most sense to you was Rome, correct?

Yes.

Moreover, in doing that, you demonstrate that one is able to understand the scripture and church history without the help, or interpretation of the Pope, and the Magisterium, correct?

Good question! The way you worded this question however I would have to answer no. The reason why I say that is regarding your use of the term “understand.” I believe what I demonstrated is that one can “read” scripture and draw some conclusions regarding its meaning when it si compared to an authoritive interpritation. Certainly I could read the scripture and claim to understand it. I could do the same with quantum physics without the aid of a teacher.

Also, I would assume then, that you think that not only the Methodists, but every other group is theologically, anthropologically, soteriologically, and any other -ologically, incorrect, right?
I mean, you chose Rome because it was the correct theology, right?

Yes. Protestant theology contains some errors and/or is incomplete. Protestants however, are our brothers and sisters in Christ. The Catholic Church contains the fulness of the teachings of Jesus, a.k.a. the Truth.

If we can read the scriptures and draw our own interpritation as the true meaning then we are susceptable to having millions of different interpritations. Was this what Jesus intended that we all define for ourselves what he teaching is all about? On the other hand, if there is only one correct interpritation of scripture and teaching of Jesus who has it and how are we to know? Because we read in the Gospels that Jesus gave to Peter the “keys to the kingdom” and the “authority to bind and loose” I choose the Catholic Church as they have the successor to Peter heading the church.

 

[dessert]

Sandusky, your bad attitude is showing again. You do not know how to debate without it. And what church do you belong to again?

Oh come on leave him alone you know he came over on Noah’s Arc

Therefore his attitude The story goes my interpretation;
God told Noah go out and gather lots of sand and Noah said how much God? God said two buckets. so Noah said yes as I need to remember what the sand looks like and when I want to remember the beach I can just sit and look at it and dream of it someday. So that is what he did and brought it back to the boat and put it up high on a shelf but alas Dusky the elephant reach his long noe up there seaarching for peanuts and knoched the buckets all down and so there was sand all over dusky and the name stuck, they renamed Noah Sandduskey. story huh? Have you got sand in your ears? just kidding Sandy Dessert

 

[jmcrae]

C’mon, Susan, you don’t get it because you are out in left field; come closer.

I don’t have to prove the point because I didn’t make the point. It was Jmcrae who said that many protestants believe that The Word made Flesh = The Bible.

I gave it as just one example of many Protestant heresies. It’s interesting that you latched on to that particular one - does this mean that the rest of the list I gave is accurate?

But I have heard Jerry Falwell give a sermon on “The Word Made Flesh,” using John 1 as his text, and the subject of the sermon was not Jesus Christ; the subject of the sermon was the Bible.

And when I was in college, I was often accosted by members of Campus Crusade for Christ, who gave me tract literature that stated that the Bible was “the Word made flesh.” I’m sorry I didn’t keep them, since then I could give you their ISBN numbers, and you could look them up. But I threw them out.

In any case, I am quite sure that you have encountered the same in your travels, and if not, then you will, sooner or later - the point of my mentioning this was not to “accuse” you of anything personally, but to simply mention that the fruit of private interpretation is error, and it was just one of the many examples of Protestant errors that I listed.