Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone?

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by happy 88;9623512[B

]If the Bible is not a complete guide to doctrine, and we need the oral tradition of the church to have a fulness of truth?[/b]Could you please draft me a list of doctrines that are not found anywhere in scripture but in the inspired oral traditions of the apostles in the first century?
Why are not the oral traditions of Jerome or Tertullian followed?
For example:
1. Three times emerged
2.Drink milk and honey before baptism
3.Sign of the cross on the forehead
3.Kneeling in worship is forbidden

Happy,

Here you have answered my first question.

You believe that the Bible is a complete guide to Doctrine and reveals the fullness of truth. You did not say sole authority. In your prior references you do point out the lack of need for Creeds so I would assume you dismiss Creeds and believe that the Bible is the sole rule of Faith for Doctrine, teaching, without need of any outsider source. I believe that you would agree with this more formal description of Holy Scripture. Yes or No?

The Holy Scriptures

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.

Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God so much that man is left without any excuse, they are not sufficient to provide that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary for salvation.

Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal Himself, and to declare His will to His church;

- and afterward, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church, protecting it against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and the world,

- it pleased the Lord to commit His revealed Truth wholly to writing. Therefore the Holy Scriptures are most necessary, those former ways by which God revealed His will unto His people having now ceased.

Happy, a simple yes or no of agreement or disagreement would help understanding of your point of view.

[Porknpie]

Originally Posted by CopticChristian

Happy,

You believe that you are clarifying and teaching. In fact you are poorly informed. I do not say this as a criticism however what you don't know is evident from what you profess you do know. You know little of history. To reference the Apostles Creed and the Nicene creed as both using "he descended into hell" and to then discuss the error implies that you do not kow the creeds or which creed you refer to.

The Creed which Catholics use is not really the Nicene Creed (adopted at the Council of Nicea in 325), but is (a modified version of) the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed." The second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (in 381) significantly reworked the original Creed of Nicea, adding much text and removing some (such as the anathema at the end), but did not assert any change to the name of the creed, so people continued to refer to it as the "Nicene Creed" (and still do), although it bears only a passing resemblance to the original.

This is an example of the use of Tradition and Scripture to verify and consolidate beliefs.

You are wrong in this understanding and should study some history before you attempt to clarify and teach. This is the CAF where you should ask questions and learn.

Coptic, could you answer the question "WHY" did the church develop the NT canon of scripture? I like to hear your explanation and think it would help Happy. This question would actually be good as a separate post.

Pork.

[EqualinHim]

Hmm. Well, I belong to a methodist church and I the answer could be summed up by something that my pastor once said: "bible first, other christian literature second".

We primarily follow the bible, but we do look to other writings as sources of courage and inspiration. It is not uncommon for a protestant to read the writings of St. Augustine, St. Francis or many of the other saints. As a matter of fact a friend of ours (a veterinarian) named her one of her businesses (an animal rehabilitation center) after St. Francis of Assisi. She is a protestant, who attends the same church that I do.

[pablope]

Originally Posted by EqualinHim

Hmm. Well, I belong to a methodist church and I the answer could be summed up by something that my pastor once said: "bible first, other christian literature second".

We primarily follow the bible, but we do look to other writings as sources of courage and inspiration. It is not uncommon for a protestant to read the writings of St. Augustine, St. Francis or many of the other saints. As a matter of fact a friend of ours (a veterinarian) named her one of her businesses (an animal rehabilitation center) after St. Francis of Assisi. She is a protestant, who attends the same church that I do.

Hmmm...so in summary, what you are saying is...Protestants do not really follow the Bible alone...but also read other writings and this affects or colors their understanding of Scripture....correct?


Please find time to read this: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/200...clesial-deism/

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by Porknpie

Coptic, could you answer the question "WHY" did the church develop the NT canon of scripture? I like to hear your explanation and think it would help Happy. This question would actually be good as a separate post.

Pork.

Pork,

This is your idea and you are able to do this. I would make the post simple... I would suggest a simple statement, a simple proposal and then questions. I tend to follow the CAF and CA formula like Fathers Know Best...looking for a tongue in cheek title...suggestions would be..

Out with the Old, In with the New and How?
or
NT and those left behind, yes Left Behind
or
NT by whom, for what, and why

You take it...

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by EqualinHim

Hmm. Well, I belong to a methodist church and I the answer could be summed up by something that my pastor once said: "bible first, other christian literature second".

We primarily follow the bible, but we do look to other writings as sources of courage and inspiration. It is not uncommon for a protestant to read the writings of St. Augustine, St. Francis or many of the other saints. As a matter of fact a friend of ours (a veterinarian) named her one of her businesses (an animal rehabilitation center) after St. Francis of Assisi. She is a protestant, who attends the same church that I do.

Equal,

This is fine today. If Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and if the Church is the body of Christ...then what did the body of Christ do before there was any Bible...and you have to admit that there was Scripture floating around, that many could not read, and that the notion that there was a Bible in every Jerusalem Marriott just ain't so. What about that?

[Erich]

Originally Posted by happy 88

Could you please draft me a list of doctrines that are not found anywhere in scripture but in the inspired oral traditions of the apostles in the first century?

You mean, in addition to the inspired tradition that tells us what books belong in scripture to begin with? As I mentioned in post #20 on this thread, there are at least four such doctrines.

And, in post #179 I mentioned some examples of Jesus' and the Apostles' Reliance on Oral Tradition.

Perhaps you could answer the following questions for us:

1) Where in the Bible does it say that we should go by the Bible alone when it comes to all matters pertaining to faith and morals? Scripture verse?
2) Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?
3) Where in the Bible does it say that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? Scripture verse?
4) Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
5) If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?
6) Do you believe the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?
7) If yes, where in the Bible does it tell us that the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?
8) Where in the Bible does it tell us who the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was? Scripture verse?
9) Do you interpret the Bible? Yes or no?
10) If the answer to #9 is yes, is your interpretation infallible? Yes or no?
11) If the answer to #9 is no, then will you admit that your interpretations of the Bible could be wrong in one or more places? Yes or no?
12) If the answer to #9 is yes, then does anyone have the authority to tell you that your interpretations of the Bible are wrong? Yes or no?
13) If the answer to #12 is yes, then who? Just one name please.

[happy 88]

Respectfully I never said that creeds are wrong. When I mentioned the apostles or Nicene creeds I lumped them together as this is atopic about protestantism and catholicism.To point out that I know nothing about history is based on what? I do know that there were many councils to get the final creed.
Let's look at my understanding of history..and tradition. This will be a two for one analogy.
How did the viewpoint on history in europe become so anti catholic? If you look closely you will find common protestant and atheist sources. The exagerrated examples of church persecution has been stated in the death oftens of millions. This is not really true at all. While it does have some truth to it, one half truth builds on another and now this is taken as a fact by many people without searching for the truth.
As with having to look to outside sources for scriptures...this is true also. Let's look at the mustard seed parable. One has to find what type of mustard plant grew in Judea. One will find that it is the black mustard plant. What does it look like? When one finds out what it looks like, then one should ask why would Jesus use this plant? Why did he not just use the analogy of a tree?A mustard tree is hardly an inviting plant for birds to rest in. It kind of resembles a big stinging needle or st johns wort. Then one should look in scripture to find any references to birds nesting on trees. This research helps with exegesis. Yes I had to go to many oitside sources for this. Just like the above topic about the inquisition or the boible we are to test everything. Try to have discernment

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by happy 88

Respectfully I never said that creeds are wrong. When I mentioned the apostles or Nicene creeds I lumped them together as this is atopic about protestantism and catholicism.To point out that I know nothing about history is based on what? I do know that there were many councils to get the final creed.
Let's look at my understanding of history..and tradition. This will be a two for one analogy.
How did the viewpoint on history in europe become so anti catholic? If you look closely you will find common protestant and atheist sources. The exagerrated examples of church persecution has been stated in the death oftens of millions. This is not really true at all. While it does have some truth to it, one half truth builds on another and now this is taken as a fact by many people without searching for the truth.
As with having to look to outside sources for scriptures...this is true also. Let's look at the mustard seed parable. One has to find what type of mustard plant grew in Judea. One will find that it is the black mustard plant. What does it look like? When one finds out what it looks like, then one should ask why would Jesus use this plant? Why did he not just use the analogy of a tree?A mustard tree is hardly an inviting plant for birds to rest in. It kind of resembles a big stinging needle or st johns wort. Then one should look in scripture to find any references to birds nesting on trees. This research helps with exegesis. Yes I had to go to many oitside sources for this. Just like the above topic about the inquisition or the boible we are to test everything. Try to have discernment

Happy,

You seem to understand parables. Explain this, Luke 11:1

11“Which of you fathers, if your son asks forf a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?

[happy 88]

Sorry computer crashed, it is on its last leg!
Again about using other extra biblical references, this is a must to find out the true meaning of a text..as we are not the first hand recipients of the bible.
Here is agood example. Someone asked what did I mean about Romans 8 in a previous post.
In Romans and I think in Galations Paul uses the term "adoption" and "adoption of sons"
This will show Pauls genious in relating the Gospel to an audience.
In ancient Rome a citizen could adopt another person to his family...now in our minds we are probably relating this to a child adoption. In Roman law (I forget the latin word) this also included a full grown man. If a man was adopted he severed his ties with his old family and assumed all normal rights including inheriance with his new family. Even his debts and responsibilties did not cross into the new family. Did Paul use some obscure unknown law to relate to the audience....NO. Everyone in the empire would have been aware of his words...as the Emperor Claudius had adopted Nero into his household, which thru inhertance made him heir to the throne.
I think this is masterfully illustrated by paul, but is only known by not reading the text at face value. This is one cause of protestants going off the mark...Sola scriptura cannot be just a feeling or unique insight...there needs to be carefull exegesis done.
Has anyone else done any study on a verse or two..it would be great to share!
I have been curious,,how does.a christian read the bible and support contraception on demand, or contraception in general? This is a big sola scriptura question.

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by happy 88

Sorry computer crashed, it is on its last leg!
Again about using other extra biblical references, this is a must to find out the true meaning of a text..as we are not the first hand recipients of the bible.
Here is agood example. Someone asked what did I mean about Romans 8 in a previous post.
In Romans and I think in Galations Paul uses the term "adoption" and "adoption of sons"
This will show Pauls genious in relating the Gospel to an audience.
In ancient Rome a citizen could adopt another person to his family...now in our minds we are probably relating this to a child adoption. In Roman law (I forget the latin word) this also included a full grown man. If a man was adopted he severed his ties with his old family and assumed all normal rights including inheriance with his new family. Even his debts and responsibilties did not cross into the new family. Did Paul use some obscure unknown law to relate to the audience....NO. Everyone in the empire would have been aware of his words...as the Emperor Claudius had adopted Nero into his household, which thru inhertance made him heir to the throne.
I think this is masterfully illustrated by paul, but is only known by not reading the text at face value. This is one cause of protestants going off the mark...Sola scriptura cannot be just a feeling or unique insight...there needs to be carefull exegesis done.
Has anyone else done any study on a verse or two..it would be great to share!
I have been curious,,how does.a christian read the bible and support contraception on demand, or contraception in general? This is a big sola scriptura question.

Happy,

The Bible and Birth Control by Charles Provan has a thorough explanation of why Birth Control is wrong.

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Birth-Co.../dp/9991799834

[joe370]

Originally Posted by Zenkai

Lutherans follow the Bible along with the writings of Luther (Large Catechism, Small Catechism, etc). Reformed and Presbyterians follow the Bible along with the writings of John Calvin. Etc.

Good point. For a non-catholic to claim that he or she is a sola scriptura advocate they would have to explain why they embrace the following:

1) The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are one ergo, the Trinity, which was defined by the CC in the 4th century. That doctrine is not explicitly spelled out in the bible, which was why certain folks in the early years of the church challenged it, thereby necessitating the need for the catholic church to define the dogma once and for all. The closest passage would be: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." Matthew 28.


Sola Scriptura itsef, believed by no one until the 16th century reformation. If the bible is the only source of truth, then where is that stated in the bible? Where does the Bible list the books that should be included? Table of contents was put there by the catholic church.

[Erich]

Originally Posted by happy 88

Again about using other extra biblical references, this is a must to find out the true meaning of a text..as we are not the first hand recipients of the bible.

Part of the reason I asked the following questions above (which you have yet to answer):

1) Where in the Bible does it say that we should go by the Bible alone when it comes to all matters pertaining to faith and morals? Scripture verse?
2) Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?
3) Where in the Bible does it say that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? Scripture verse?
4) Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?
5) If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?
6) Do you believe the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?
7) If yes, where in the Bible does it tell us that the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?
8) Where in the Bible does it tell us who the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was? Scripture verse?
9) Do you interpret the Bible? Yes or no?
10) If the answer to #9 is yes, is your interpretation infallible? Yes or no?
11) If the answer to #9 is no, then will you admit that your interpretations of the Bible could be wrong in one or more places? Yes or no?
12) If the answer to #9 is yes, then does anyone have the authority to tell you that your interpretations of the Bible are wrong? Yes or no?
13) If the answer to #12 is yes, then who? Just one name please.

[englishredrose]

we could get very lost if we started where in the Bible games....

after all, where in the Bible does it say do confession before mass

where in the Bible does it say mass every sunday

where in the Bible does it say mass every day

where in the Bible does it say the Rosary

where in the Bible does it say one has to do RCIA classes before confirmation to be considered Catholic

where in the Bible.... one could go on and on and on and on and on can't they and it gets us no where.

as this discussion seems to be driving you around in tighter circles as you try to argue you point in trying to tease protestants of their stance in your own eyes. Grow up I might add because at end of the day you are only picking holes at protestants rather than a genuine enquiry

[John7]

Originally Posted by englishredrose

we could get very lost if we started where in the Bible games....

after all, where in the Bible does it say do confession before mass

where in the Bible does it say mass every sunday

where in the Bible does it say mass every day

where in the Bible does it say the Rosary

where in the Bible does it say one has to do RCIA classes before confirmation to be considered Catholic

where in the Bible.... one could go on and on and on and on and on can't they and it gets us no where.

as this discussion seems to be driving you around in tighter circles as you try to argue you point in trying to tease protestants of their stance in your own eyes. Grow up I might add because at end of the day you are only picking holes at protestants rather than a genuine enquiry

where in the bible does it say where in the bible?
know the meaning kiddo