Why do protestants believe in Bible only?

[dronald]

I just LOVE this topic!!!

If we go by dronald’s interpretation (please see 2 Peter 1:20-21 regarding personal interpretation) that all we need to do is believe in Jesus, and we don’t need to obey the Commandments, don’t need to go to Mass or services every Sunday, we don’t need to be baptized, we don’t need to be repentant of our sins, and I guess we don’t need the Bible, either.

Is is POSSIBLE, that there could be a little more to Salvation that just believing? What about John 13:34? “I give you a new commandment. Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.” Are we to ignore this command and just believe in Jesus?

I love the Bible. It has 99.999% of all things Catholic in it. The New Testament was written by, and compiled by Catholics. Even our Lutheran and Anglican friends agree to that. Since I have been here at CAF, I have come to find out that most of the differences that separate Catholics from Protestants is interpretation and authority.

I guess my short anwer to the OP’s question of why they believe in the Bible only is that they rejected the Church’s authority to interpret the Bible, then rejected the Church itself. If you reject the Church, what do you have left? The Bible.

It is rather interesting that Catholic’s have this strange idea that because Protestant’s believe that believing in Jesus Christ saves us, that we all want to go off sinning as if God doesn’t care that we sin as long as we have His Son.

This is a silly concept and unacceptable. Protestant’s are sinners and so are Catholic’s, yet we all strive to be better because of what God has commanded us to do in the Bible. We don’t sit back and ignore James, but we accept that we have been saved by grace through faith, not by works so that no one can boast.

Let’s drop the idea that Protestant’s believe they should just go on sinning. We don’t. Instead we’re building Churches and homes in Africa while preaching the Gospel. We don’t believe that we’re made more pure by this, but we do it because God has commanded us, and He loves us. Why wouldn’t we want to work our hardest for the God of all graces who loves us so much?

 

[Peebo]

Which one of the 30,000 (and growing daily) bible only Protestant churches is being led by the Holy Spirit…anyone

 

[Cak7711]

Which one of the 30,000 (and growing daily) bible only Protestant churches is being led by the Holy Spirit…anyone

Every single person on this planet is lead by the Holy Spirit. It is whether we choose to accept or disobey his teaching. Also Catholics need to get over this argumnt that they are allowed to do what ever they want because Jesus said the Holy Spirit guides the church. It does guide the church, but the Catholics are choosing to disobey him. I’m sorry but did Jesus have some sort of private conversation with the future popes telling them to disobey him. Was Jesus just misguiding us when he said, “for god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son, and if you believe in him you will not parish but have everlasting life” John 3:16. Did Jesus give some sort of addition to this in a private conversation. It doesn’t say if you believe in him and do other works the pope says you should do and confess your future sins to a priest and you shall not parish but have everlasting life? The only people infallible and able to create rules outside what Jesus said were the apostles. Not a self proclaimed " vicar of Christ". If the pope is infallible then were the evil popes of the past right in what they did. Am I the only one that remembers when the borgias basically bought out the church to make laws that benefited them. Those popes were guided by the Holy Spirit just like all of us, and they disobeyed him. Also, the Holy Spirit guides, it doesn’t control you so you do not abuse your power. God gives us free will, he doesn’t force us to follow him.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Every single person on this planet is lead by the Holy Spirit. It is whether we choose to accept or disobey his teaching. Also Catholics need to get over this argumnt that they are allowed to do what ever they want because Jesus said the Holy Spirit guides the church. It does guide the church, but the Catholics are choosing to disobey him. I’m sorry but did Jesus have some sort of private conversation with the future popes telling them to disobey him. Was Jesus just misguiding us when he said, “for god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son, and if you believe in him you will not parish but have everlasting life” John 3:16. Did Jesus give some sort of addition to this in a private conversation. It doesn’t say if you believe in him and do other works the pope says you should do and confess your future sins to a priest and you shall not parish but have everlasting life? The only people infallible and able to create rules outside what Jesus said were the apostles. Not a self proclaimed " vicar of Christ". If the pope is infallible then were the evil popes of the past right in what they did. Am I the only one that remembers when the borgias basically bought out the church to make laws that benefited them. Those popes were guided by the Holy Spirit just like all of us, and they disobeyed him. Also, the Holy Spirit guides, it doesn’t control you so you do not abuse your power. God gives us free will, he doesn’t force us to follow him.

We are choosing to disobey the Holy Spirit? Where is your evidence or do you just “feel” or “think” we disobey? You think we can confess future sins? That wasn’t talked about in my RCIA class. I think you need to do some research, you are wayyyy off base.

 

[Razanir]

Every single person on this planet is lead by the Holy Spirit. It is whether we choose to accept or disobey his teaching. Also Catholics need to get over this argumnt that they are allowed to do what ever they want because Jesus said the Holy Spirit guides the church. It does guide the church, but the Catholics are choosing to disobey him. I’m sorry but did Jesus have some sort of private conversation with the future popes telling them to disobey him. Was Jesus just misguiding us when he said, “for god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son, and if you believe in him you will not parish but have everlasting life” John 3:16. Did Jesus give some sort of addition to this in a private conversation. It doesn’t say if you believe in him and do other works the pope says you should do and confess your future sins to a priest and you shall not parish but have everlasting life? The only people infallible and able to create rules outside what Jesus said were the apostles. Not a self proclaimed " vicar of Christ". If the pope is infallible then were the evil popes of the past right in what they did. Am I the only one that remembers when the borgias basically bought out the church to make laws that benefited them. Those popes were guided by the Holy Spirit just like all of us, and they disobeyed him. Also, the Holy Spirit guides, it doesn’t control you so you do not abuse your power. God gives us free will, he doesn’t force us to follow him.

1. We don’t confess future sins. Only ones we’ve already committed.
2. Actually, it does. James 2:26 (KJV) “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
3. The Pope’s only infallible when speaking ex cathedra
4. Infallible != immaculate. Popes sin, too.

 

[Peebo]

Every single person on this planet is lead by the Holy Spirit. It is whether we choose to accept or disobey his teaching. Also Catholics need to get over this argumnt that they are allowed to do what ever they want because Jesus said the Holy Spirit guides the church. It does guide the church, but the Catholics are choosing to disobey him. I’m sorry but did Jesus have some sort of private conversation with the future popes telling them to disobey him. Was Jesus just misguiding us when he said, “for god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son, and if you believe in him you will not parish but have everlasting life” John 3:16. Did Jesus give some sort of addition to this in a private conversation. It doesn’t say if you believe in him and do other works the pope says you should do and confess your future sins to a priest and you shall not parish but have everlasting life? The only people infallible and able to create rules outside what Jesus said were the apostles. Not a self proclaimed " vicar of Christ". If the pope is infallible then were the evil popes of the past right in what they did. Am I the only one that remembers when the borgias basically bought out the church to make laws that benefited them. Those popes were guided by the Holy Spirit just like all of us, and they disobeyed him. Also, the Holy Spirit guides, it doesn’t control you so you do not abuse your power. God gives us free will, he doesn’t force us to follow him.

Jesus in fact said to SIMON…you are PETER (a rock)…and upon this rock I will build my church…you are the one who is disobeying Jesus…Jesus proclaimed Peter as the rock on which he would build his church…you refuse to acknowledge the words of Jesus to suit your own interpretation…and Jesus did not need some private conversation with future Popes because he made it pretty clear to the first Pope…Peter…and what Popes did or didn’t do has nothing to do with the Dogma of the Catholic Church…that is what is infallible…not the Popes…nor were the Apostles infallible as you suggest…and we are NOT all guided by the Holy Spirit…if we were there would only be one Holy Catholic (Universal if you don’t like the word Catholic) and Apostolic Church which indeed Jesus founded 2000 years ago…not 500 years ago.

 

[Cak7711]

He never called Peter the pope. Also I do believe Peter was the rock on which Jesus built his church. The Catholic Church was right in the beginning. But ever since then the church has been going against what Jesus said. Also when I said future sins I miss spoke; I meant Jesus never said that in the future we need to confess our sins to a priest to be forgiven, we only need to confess to god. I know Jesus said the apostles could forgive, but never all future priests. Nor Jesus or Peter ever said that the positions Peter and the apostles held were to be passed down. I do agree though that we do need to have a leader of the church, but not with the original authority of Peter. Jesus said Peter is the rock, not him and a long chain of people to replace him. Also, how could you pass down the position of the rock. How many rocks does Jesus need to build his church. BTW, don’t tell me i am dissobeying Jesus. I never doughted Peter was the leader of the church. I dought that a man that calls himself the pope has the authority to condradict Christ. The pope has done this because he says that there are more things you have to do to be saved. I’m tempted to quote John 3:16, but I have done this so many times I think you guys simply don’t care what Christ said. I know the pope disobeys the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit would not tell the church to do something Christ disapproved. There is nothing wrong with confessing to a priest, but it is not necessary to be saved. I choose to take Jesus’ word over the pope’s.

 

[Cak7711]

1. We don’t confess future sins. Only ones we’ve already committed.
2. Actually, it does. James 2:26 (KJV) “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
3. The Pope’s only infallible when speaking ex cathedra
4. Infallible != immaculate. Popes sin, too.

1)that’s what I meant, my bad. You only need to confess to god.
2)I absolutely agree, you need to do the works Jesus told us to do, like believing in him, getting baptized, repent for your sins(to GOD)
3) I forget, who was it who came up with ex cathedra. I do not believe that is a teaching of Jesus or Peter, in fact none of the apostles said this. Ex cathedra is something men came up with.
4) He is tempted by the devil like the rest of us. He cannot add things we must do to be saved. He is a teacher not the vicar of Christ. He does not have the same authority of Peter.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Ex cathedra is something men came up with.

Just like the Bible. You know, Jesus and the Apostles didn’t mention the Bible either.

 

[Cak7711]

Jesus in fact said to SIMON…you are PETER (a rock)…and upon this rock I will build my church…you are the one who is disobeying Jesus…Jesus proclaimed Peter as the rock on which he would build his church…you refuse to acknowledge the words of Jesus to suit your own interpretation…and Jesus did not need some private conversation with future Popes because he made it pretty clear to the first Pope…Peter…and what Popes did or didn’t do has nothing to do with the Dogma of the Catholic Church…that is what is infallible…not the Popes…nor were the Apostles infallible as you suggest…and we are NOT all guided by the Holy Spirit…if we were there would only be one Holy Catholic (Universal if you don’t like the word Catholic) and Apostolic Church which indeed Jesus founded 2000 years ago…not 500 years ago.

1. I agree that Peter was the rock I never said otherwise. That is not my interpretation that is what he said. You are interpreting that Jesus meant for the position Peter had to be passed down.
2. if Jesus made this so very clear then could you privide me with a quote. When did Jesus say we must confess to a priest? When did he say that we should have a successor of Peter? When did he say that pope would be able to speak ex cathadra? I have no personal hatred against the church. If Jesus approves any of theses things, I will be more that happy to play along.
3. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one in the same. He told us what he wanted us to do. He also gave the apostles the authority to make traditions, and I think many traditions of the church are true. But Jesus didnt give this authority to future generations. Also the apostals couldn’t make traditions that contradict what Jesus said. The apostals were given this authority because they knew what Jesus wanted and wouldn’t contradict him. The pope doesn’t have this relationship. He doesn’t have the authority to speak on Jesus’ behalf.

 

[Cak7711]

Just like the Bible. You know, Jesus and the Apostles didn’t mention the Bible either.

Of course they didn’t the bible wasn’t compiled yet. Does this make their testiment untrue. I don’t care if the church makes traditions, but they can’t contradict Jesus. Also the bible isn’t what is important, it’s the texts it contains. The bible does however mention the Word of God. The word of god is the old testoment and the testiments of Jesus and his desciples. What else could you possible need then the testiments of Jesus and his desciples. The word of God says you may not add or subtract anything from it. So tell me, how is it that the traditions of men are allowed in. The only traditions allowed are the ones made by the apostles because Jesus have them the authority. Most of what the church practices didnt come from the apostles. How can someone speak on the behalf of Jesus when everything that Jesus wanted has already need said. Or do you think the apostels failed to give the world all of Jesus’ teachings as they were told to do so and you must fill in the blanks.

 

[Cak7711]

Just like the Bible. You know, Jesus and the Apostles didn’t mention the Bible either.

Of cours they didn’t the bible wasn’t compiled yet. Does this make what it says untrue. You know what is mentioned in the bible, The Word of God. The Word of God is the old testiment and the testiments if Jesus and his decipel. What more could you want. And it just so happens that the bible contains all these things. All the testiments are the Word of God, al of these testiments put together in a book is called the bible. I don’t have a problem with the traditions of the church, just when the contradict the Word of God. It says that you cannot add or subtract from it. The only reason the apostels could make traditions is because Jesus gave them the authority, and the church would follow them nothing more and nothing less. Many things the church teaches were not from Jesus or the apostels, but from men who had no authority to alter the will of he lord.

 

[Razanir]

2)I absolutely agree, you need to do the works Jesus told us to do, like believing in him, getting baptized, repent for your sins(to GOD)

1. It’s not referring to that. It’s referring to the Ten Commandments. If you don’t uphold them, you can lose your salvation, but not your ability to be saved.

Of course they didn’t the bible wasn’t compiled yet. Does this make their testiment untrue. I don’t care if the church makes traditions, but they can’t contradict Jesus. Also the bible isn’t what is important, it’s the texts it contains. The bible does however mention the Word of God. The word of god is the old testoment and the testiments of Jesus and his desciples. What else could you possible need then the testiments of Jesus and his desciples. The word of God says you may not add or subtract anything from it. So tell me, how is it that the traditions of men are allowed in. The only traditions allowed are the ones made by the apostles because Jesus have them the authority. Most of what the church practices didnt come from the apostles. How can someone speak on the behalf of Jesus when everything that Jesus wanted has already need said. Or do you think the apostels failed to give the world all of Jesus’ teachings as they were told to do so and you must fill in the blanks.

Okay. I offer this rebuttal:
What about the Protoevangelium of James? What about the Gospel of Thomas? What about Clement? What about the Didache? Why are they all not in the Bible? And for that matter, why is the New Testament specifically the 27 books that it is?

In case you were wondering those books are:
*James– Book about Mary’s birth
*Thomas– Most often named Gnostic Gospel
*Clement– At least according to Wikipedia, it almost made it into canon
*Didache– Writings of the Early Church Fathers

 

[Cak7711]

1. It’s not referring to that. It’s referring to the Ten Commandments. If you don’t uphold them, you can lose your salvation, but not your ability to be saved.

Okay. I offer this rebuttal:
What about the Protoevangelium of James? What about the Gospel of Thomas? What about Clement? What about the Didache? Why are they all not in the Bible? And for that matter, why is the New Testament specifically the 27 books that it is?

In case you were wondering those books are:
*James– Book about Mary’s birth
*Thomas– Most often named Gnostic Gospel
*Clement– At least according to Wikipedia, it almost made it into canon
*Didache– Writings of the Early Church Fathers

I agree that those books shouldn’t have been taken out. I also disagree with the Protestants. I’m stuck between the two, i think both have customized Jesus’ church to much. The Catholics go to far and the Protestants don’t go far enough. Though I may agree with taking out the didache. They did not have the authority of Christ to make traditions like the apostiles.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Of cours they didn’t the bible wasn’t compiled yet.

It makes the argument that developed doctrine is made by men fall flat on the ground. Since the Bible was developed as well… by men.

The Word of God.

And how do you know that the Bible is the Word of God?

And it just so happens that the bible contains all these things.

Of course, it’s a Catholic Book.

I don’t have a problem with the traditions of the church, just when the contradict the Word of God.

They contradict the Word of God according to whom? You see, the Bible being a Catholic Book does not contradict anything in the Catholic Church. It only seems to contradict when you rely on private interpretation.

It says that you cannot add or subtract from it.

The Book of Revelations says that about itself. Not the entire Bible, because there was no such thing when it was written…

The only reason the apostels could make traditions is because Jesus gave them the authority, and the church would follow them nothing more and nothing less. Many things the church teaches were not from Jesus or the apostels, but from men who had no authority to alter the will of he lord.

So it is your personal opinion that the Church was supposed to die after the Apostles died? That the Apostles didn’t in turn teach and ordained others to further the Church of the Living God? Please think carefully before you answer.

 

[chero23]

It is rather interesting that Catholic’s have this strange idea that because Protestant’s believe that believing in Jesus Christ saves us, that we all want to go off sinning as if God doesn’t care that we sin as long as we have His Son.

This is a silly concept and unacceptable. Protestant’s are sinners and so are Catholic’s, yet we all strive to be better because of what God has commanded us to do in the Bible. We don’t sit back and ignore James, but we accept that we have been saved by grace through faith, not by works so that no one can boast.

Let’s drop the idea that Protestant’s believe they should just go on sinning. We don’t. Instead we’re building Churches and homes in Africa while preaching the Gospel. We don’t believe that we’re made more pure by this, but we do it because God has commanded us, and He loves us. Why wouldn’t we want to work our hardest for the God of all graces who loves us so much?

You say that no protestant denominations say that you can go sin and you’ll be saved. I believe that Evangelicals have the once saved always saved dogma. No were does it say in the Bible that humans decide whose saved and whose condemned. But somehow Evangelicals (who are Protestants btw) preach that once you say the Sinner’s Prayer your saved no matte what state you are in, in regards to sin.

We cannot drop this bc theirs several verses in the bible besides that of James, which speak that we are not only judged by faith but for our actions.

 

[Razanir]

I agree that those books shouldn’t have been taken out. I also disagree with the Protestants. I’m stuck between the two, i think both have customized Jesus’ church to much. The Catholics go to far and the Protestants don’t go far enough. Though I may agree with taking out the didache. They did not have the authority of Christ to make traditions like the apostiles.

Eh? I’m not sure I follow. Catholics can’t have gone too far because we were the ones who codified the Bible in the first place. They decided in the 400s AD what is and isn’t in the Bible. Luther was the one who edited it, partly because of a lack of original Hebrew sources.

 

[chero23]

I’m Protestant and the reason most of us believe in sola scripture is because we know it is true. Even though Catholics like to boast about how they put together the bible and therefor are above it, they fail to mention one thing. Those books were choosen because everyone followed them and they were the most commonly used. We know they are true and from reliable resources, unlike many extra biblical texts. Also they are the only texts from the apostles. Many books the Catholic Church uses are man written. The books in the bible were used together in Sherman’s long before the church put them together. The church basically just published them in a single book. It’s not that Protestant think the bible is everything there is, just everything that is needed. We follow it alone because the church cannot be trusted. They have slowly customized the teachings of Jesus and the apostles by using things they call “interpretations”. Me personally actually agree with many of the extra biblical teachings of the Catholic Church, though there are some I don’t agree with; such as needing to confess to a priest, infant baptism, baptism by sprinkalling. The church seems to focus to much on the little things, like Mary. The bible says she is holy among women, but the church goes to far. It just comes down to the point that the church is not infallible and makes mistakes. Their teachings are not more important the Jesus’. We know this from the corruption of the many popes in the Middle Ages.

You make a point that Popes were corrupt in the middle ages. SO your telling me that all members in your church, better yet the pastors at your Church never commit a sin? IF they don’t man, you guys are sure blessed to not have any sinners at your church.

The Chirch is composed of sinners and saints, unfortunately we have more sinners than Saints, but bc of that reason you are not going to stop going to Church. If your neighbor goes to the same church as you, and he commits all types of sins, that should not demoralize you, bc your not going to heaven or hell for what your neighbor does.

We treat the Blessed Virgin with the love that she deserves. She is the Ark of the New Convenant, if you don’t think so look at the parralels between 2Samuel 6:1-17 to Luke 1:39-56. You can then see in 1 Chronicles in Chapters 15 and 16 how the people of jerusalem celebrated and venerated the Ark.

On infant baptism, you can see how infants had to be circumcised, as early as Genesis.

 

[Cak7711]

It makes the argument that developed doctrine is made by men fall flat on the ground. Since the Bible was developed as well… by men.

And how do you know that the Bible is the Word of God?

Of course, it’s a Catholic Book.

They contradict the Word of God according to whom? You see, the Bible being a Catholic Book does not contradict anything in the Catholic Church. It only seems to contradict when you rely on private interpretation.

The Book of Revelations says that about itself. Not the entire Bible, because there was no such thing when it was written…

So it is your personal opinion that the Church was supposed to die after the Apostles died? That the Apostles didn’t in turn teach and ordained others to further the Church of the Living God? Please think carefully before you answer.

1)The bible is the word of god because it contains what Jesus taught. The catholic church compiled it because they were defining what the word of god was. those books were chose because they contained the truth. They were the testaments of Jesus; how does this not make the bible the word of God. I think it is wrong to give it the name the bible. John 1:1,14 says that Jesus is the word of God. I shouldn’t say that the bible is the word of God. The bible is the collection of the testaments Jesus gave during his years of teaching as the point of view of his apostles. If this is true and the bible depicts Jesus’ teachings then it would indeed be the word of God.
2)The bible indeed is a catholic book; but the testaments it entails are God’s. Just because the catholic church took the testaments of the apostles and compiled them in a book doesn’t give them control over it. The testaments of the apostles were around way before the church put them together in a book.
3) Some teaching of the church contradict what the Jesus teaches. This is not my opinion this is a factual observation. For instance, the church teaches that if you sin after being baptized you have to confess your sins to a priest in order to be forgiven. Jesus doesn’t teach this, he gives the apostles the ability to forgive sins of his behalf, but you don’t have to do this in order to be saved. You only have to confess to God and repent.
4) There was no such thing as the bible but there was the word of God (the testament of Jesus)
5) I don’t think the church should have died. I just don’t think the original authority given to Peter and the apostles should be passed down; Jesus nor Peter proclaimed this. I do think that the church need a leader, and that lead can be the pope, but that pope doesn’t have the authority of Peter. The pope cannot add traditions to what peter already created.

 

[CyndiTo411]

1)The bible is the word of god because it contains what Jesus taught. The catholic church compiled it because they were defining what the word of god was. those books were chose because they contained the truth. They were the testaments of Jesus; how does this not make the bible the word of God. I think it is wrong to give it the name the bible. John 1:1,14 says that Jesus is the word of God. I shouldn’t say that the bible is the word of God. The bible is the collection of the testaments Jesus gave during his years of teaching as the point of view of his apostles. If this is true and the bible depicts Jesus’ teachings then it would indeed be the word of God.
2)The bible indeed is a catholic book; but the testaments it entails are God’s. Just because the catholic church took the testaments of the apostles and compiled them in a book doesn’t give them control over it. The testaments of the apostles were around way before the church put them together in a book.
3) Some teaching of the church contradict what the Jesus teaches. This is not my opinion this is a factual observation. For instance, the church teaches that if you sin after being baptized you have to confess your sins to a priest in order to be forgiven. Jesus doesn’t teach this, he gives the apostles the ability to forgive sins of his behalf, but you don’t have to do this in order to be saved. You only have to confess to God and repent.
4) There was no such thing as the bible but there was the word of God (the testament of Jesus)
5) I don’t think the church should have died. I just don’t think the original authority given to Peter and the apostles should be passed down; Jesus nor Peter proclaimed this. I do think that the church need a leader, and that lead can be the pope, but that pope doesn’t have the authority of Peter. The pope cannot add traditions to what peter already created.

We don’t HAVE to confess our sins to a priest we have the privilege of going to a priest confessing our sins to GOD and hear the words of forgiveness through the priest. Could you please explain to me what teachings cotradict Christ I seriously dont know