Sola Scriptora

[yomotalking]

Getting back to the main topic.,....

Yes, I think that everything we need to know is contained in the Bible.

It teaches what we REALLY need to know.......

How to get to Heaven.

[Fiosh]

Fiosh said:

It is sola Scriptura that cannot be justified.

Wrong. Read Psalm 119. Not one time does David thank God for oral traditions. In fact, he goes so far as to thank God for the word, because it has made him wiser than the traditions of the ancients.

Psalm 119: 97 O how I love thy law! it is my meditation all the day. 98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. 99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. 101 I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. 102 I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. 103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. 105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. 106 I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments. 107 I am afflicted very much: quicken me, O LORD, according unto thy word. 108 Accept, I beseech thee, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O LORD, and teach me thy judgments. 109 My soul is continually in my hand: yet do I not forget thy law. 110 The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts. 111 Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. 112 I have inclined mine heart to perform thy statutes alway, even unto the end. 113 I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love. 114 Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word.

and so on. Read the entire passage. Not one time does David thank God for oral tradition. Over and over he praises God for the written word, i.e. "law, precepts, commandments," etc.

With all due respect, "Tradition" in the RCC refers to New Testament church teaching.

[Fiosh]

Getting back to the main topic.,....

Yes, I think that everything we need to know is contained in the Bible.

It teaches what we REALLY need to know.......

How to get to Heaven.

Are you related to Gerioke? You have a way of cutting thru the doo doo, Yomo.

Yes, you are right. This is the main topic.

And here is what I see the problem to be. When we believe that each of us can interpret the Bible on our own, we come up with very different doctrines.

This is not to say that you should not read your Bible or look to it for inspiration. That is not at all what I mean.

I do read my Bible daily. I do pray to the Holy Spirit to teach me His truth thru His word. I do look for guidance and comfort and a deeper relationship with God thru Scripture. Yes, yes, yes!

What I don't do is to try to interpret basic doctrine. That is a matter for the Church leadership inspired by the Holy Spirit.

If you don't believe that the RCC is "the" Church, I understand. But it is clear to me that Jesus established a Church leadership (the Apostles) who then annointed bishops, who met in council to make the rules.

That is Biblical.

Nowhere does it say we should all make up our own rules as we go along.

The deposit of faith is passed down thru the generations by the Church.

There is no question about that.

Your question is simply---"Which Church" ?

Peace,

Fiosh

Love ya, sweetie.

[yomotalking]

No, lol, I'm not related to Gerioke.

lol

I think I've learnt it from him!

LOL

Not really, just kidding!

[Pax]

No Shiloh, the burden of proof is on you and any others that believe in Sola Scriptora.

LOL, No, Pax... You are the "plaintiff" in this thread. The OP is yours. You are the one making the allegations and putting those who believe in Sola Scriptura on the defense. The "defense" never has the burden of proof. It is up to you to demonstrate why outside tradition is absolutely necessary. That is how true debate works. It is inappropriate to say, "you're wrong, now prove you are right." If you make the allegations, the onus is on you to demonstrate the merits of your allegations.

You didn't answer any of my claims, you only went on to attack the Catholic Church and blame it for world illiteracy????

yes I did answer your claims. What few you actually made. I did not say that the Catholic Church caused illiteracy, but they certainly perpetuated it, and used it to their advantage.

Anglicans now allow openly homosexuals to be Bishops of their respective dioceses (Gene Robinson, Hew Hampshire). Evangelical Lutherans just voted to allow homosexual cleargy, this vote failed by a small margin, do you think next time it will pass? Methodist are o.k. with abortion and don't take a stand against it. Every other Protestant denomination, including Baptist are o.k. with contraception. Before the 1930 every Protestant Church was against conception, now only the Catholic Church still holds to this belief.

Contraception aside (you cannot demonstrate from the Bible that is a sin), to blame increasing homosexual acceptance on Sola Scriptura is simply baseless. How do you explain that this is a relatively new phenomenon in the Church, and for decades these denoms had no such practices? It has only been in the last ten years or so that certain denoms have begun to allow what is defined as immoral by the Scriptures into the Church. To try and draw a line between that Sola Scriptura is circumstantial at best.

Most people who accept homosexuality as valid and proper do not do this, because they are relying on sound study of Scripture. In most cases, they advocate an abandonment of Scripture. Most "Christians" who accept homosexuality do so, because they reject the Bible as moral guide and the final court of appeals on doctrinal matters. You simply do not have a case. You have no evidence to directly link Sola Scriptura; only accusations that you have contrived by your imagination. Again, since you are making the allegation that Sola Scriptura is directly responsible for this moral decline, then you have demonstrate how it is responsible. The onus is on you to provide the evidence to demonstrate the truthfulness and accuracy of your allegations, or withdraw them.

Noticed that Christ said My Church. That means one Church not 20,000 Churches all teaching different ideas,

I know this might be an affront to the Catholics' definition of "the Church," but "the Church" is not the Catholic Church. "The Church" is only comprised of every person who has accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Only those who have received Him into their heart to sit on the throne of their lives are part of the "Church." Anyone, regardless of denominational affiliation who has not obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ and have not been washed in the blood of Christ and not put 100% of their faith in the finished sacrifice of Christ on the cross is NOT part of the Church. Only those who along with Peter declare, "thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God" have any part in God's church.

That does not mean that we don't disagree on peripherals, but it does mean we are united by that one thing that is most important. We are united by His cross and the redemption from sin that it represents.

What about the Southern Baptist Preacher in Texas? I have no doubt that he is a very holy good man that has a close personal relationship with God. But he is missing out on the fullness of the truth. He is missing out on apostolic succession, magesterium, Church History and tradition and what he is left with is private judgement of Sacred Scripture.

He is not missing out on anything. He has eternal life, and the 100% assurance that He is going to be with Jesus when he dies. He knows that he is saved, and he knows his Savior intimately. He does not rely on a "private" interpretation Scripture because that is not where His faith lies. Our faith, as Baptists, does not rely on how we interpret Scripture. Our faith relies on Jesus. Biblical Christianity is Christ Alone. Sola Christos. The faith of the New Testament is based upon Jesus and Jesus alone. The Baptist in Texas knows that and so the rest of us. You can have your Magisterium... We will Take Jesus and the Bible.

Shiloh,

O.k. lets talk about other doctrinal issues that are splintering Protestant Churches. How about the Rapture, is your pastor for it against it. Some people read the Bible and take one verse out of context and now we have the Rapture theory. Others read the Bible and say there is nothing in the Bible about the Rapture. Do you believe in once saved always saved. Some Protestant buy into this whole heartily, other say no way. Do you believe in predestination? Do you believe in infant Baptism, probably not since you are Southern Baptist, but a Lutheran would. I used the example of Homosexuality to show how misguided some Churches become with no real authority. These are no small peripherals, but major issues. It is very scary when a pastor tells his church that once they profess that Jesus Christ died on the cross, then they can't lose their salvation. Just like you could point to scripture that would prove in your mind that once saved always saved, I could show scripture that says differently. So who has the authority???? It is very clear that Christ would have one visible Church led by a man, who was guided by the Holy Spirit. Mathew 16: 18-19. What is the only Church who can lay claim to succession back to Peter.

When did the Southern Baptist denomination take hold??? How about in the 17th century John Smith seperated from the Church of England. Eventually Baptist came to the United States and I assume that the Southern Baptist are an off shoot of John Smith's Church. More than likely someone read the bible and used their personal judgment to come up with a little different theology and now we have Southern Baptist. In the future we will probably have a Southeastern Baptist movement, and a Northern Baptist movement all claiming to have the bible and interpreted it the right way.

And by the way the Church of England broke off from the Catholic Church. Why did they break off from the Catholic church, because King Henry the VIII wanted to divorce his wife and the Catholic Church wouldn't allow it, so what's old King Henry do, he starts his own religion and makes himself head of the Church so that he can divorce his wife. Now we have the Church of England.

[Fiosh]

No, lol, I'm not related to Gerioke.

lol

I think I've learnt it from him!

LOL

Not really, just kidding!

I'm sure he would be honored to hear you say that!

[Pax]

How many times have you heard someone say "I'm Catholic, but I don't believe that....... is wrong?" I know that if I had banked a nickle every time I have heard it I would be on my way to a comfortable retirement by now.

Just as every Catholic does not follow every teaching of their church, so all those who claim to be sola scriptura do not always follow every truth in the Bible. It's human (read sinful) nature to pick and choose what we want to believe. The Bible is all truth (John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. ) but people tend to pick and choose what they want to believe, or use clever arguments to get around what they don't like. The problem is not with the scripture, it is with people. No matter what denomination they are with.

The Word of God has all we need. The Holy Spirit stands ready to teach the teachable heart.

Psalm 119:89 Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

IslandRose,

It is very simple, if a Catholic does not fully follow what the Church teaches, than they are not in full communion with the Church. I live in a small town in Eastern Nebraska. We have 800 families in our parish and we have three priest to serve those families. We also have a Catholic elementary and high school. We have 8 priest that drive from other smaller towns to teach in the high school so the children are taught Catholic theology from priests. We also have nuns teaching in both the high school and elementary. I realize it is not like this in too many other areas of the country. My point is that you would be hard pressed in this area to find Catholics who don't believe fully in what the church teaches and what she stands for. There are many Catholics who are in full communion with the Church......you have found two with Fiosh and myself.

The difference between the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches is that if a Catholic doesn't believe in what the Church teaches they will either be a lukewarm Catholic, or they will leave the Church. They won't start another Catholic Church that suits their mis guided theology. If a Protestant doesn't like their Church, then they will move on to one of the other thousand Protestant Churchs looking for a Church that fits their fancy, or they will just start another Church. Thus the splintering continues. People are drawn to orthodxy and the truth. This is why the Catholic Church stands at 1.2 Billion world wide and is growing. If the Catholic Church wan't the fullness of the truth, she would of dried up long ago. Catholicism also flourishes is areas where dioceses remain orthodox. My diocese is a good example of this. We have many vocations to the priesthood, our Catholic schools are overcrowed, not only by Catholics, but non-Catholics that like the structure and discipline Catholic schools offer. I believe everything the Catholic Church teaches and am thankful I have the guidance. My life before being Catholic was a huge struggle, since converting 4 years ago my life has became much richer and fuller and I have the tools to deal with adversity when it arises. Words cannot convey what the Sacraments, specifically the Eucharist and reconciliation can do for a person.

[Pax]

Getting back to the main topic.,....

Yes, I think that everything we need to know is contained in the Bible.

It teaches what we REALLY need to know.......

How to get to Heaven.

Yomo,

Get your Bible out and read John 21:25 "And there are also many other things that JESUS did, which if they were written one by one, I suspose that even the world itself couldn not contain the books that would be written. Amen." What does this mean to you. It is clear that Jesus did many other things that were not written down in the Bible.

2 Thes. 2:15 "Hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter." This clearly talks about oral tradtion being passed on.

1 Cor. 11:2 "hold fast to traditions I handed on to you."

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh,

O.k. lets talk about other doctrinal issues that are splintering Protestant Churches. How about the Rapture, is your pastor for it against it. Some people read the Bible and take one verse out of context and now we have the Rapture theory. Others read the Bible and say there is nothing in the Bible about the Rapture. Do you believe in once saved always saved. Some Protestant buy into this whole heartily, other say no way. Do you believe in predestination? Do you believe in infant Baptism, probably not since you are Southern Baptist, but a Lutheran would. I used the example of Homosexuality to show how misguided some Churches become with no real authority. These are no small peripherals, but major issues. It is very scary when a pastor tells his church that once they profess that Jesus Christ died on the cross, then they can't lose their salvation. Just like you could point to scripture that would prove in your mind that once saved always saved, I could show scripture that says differently. So who has the authority???? It is very clear that Christ would have one visible Church led by a man, who was guided by the Holy Spirit. Mathew 16: 18-19. What is the only Church who can lay claim to succession back to Peter.

When did the Southern Baptist denomination take hold??? How about in the 17th century John Smith seperated from the Church of England. Eventually Baptist came to the United States and I assume that the Southern Baptist are an off shoot of John Smith's Church. More than likely someone read the bible and used their personal judgment to come up with a little different theology and now we have Southern Baptist. In the future we will probably have a Southeastern Baptist movement, and a Northern Baptist movement all claiming to have the bible and interpreted it the right way.

And by the way the Church of England broke off from the Catholic Church. Why did they break off from the Catholic church, because King Henry the VIII wanted to divorce his wife and the Catholic Church wouldn't allow it, so what's old King Henry do, he starts his own religion and makes himself head of the Church so that he can divorce his wife. Now we have the Church of England.

Part of the problem here, Pax, is that you are trying, evidently to define "unity" as comformity of belief and thought.

Sola Scriptura is not discredited because different people approach the Bible from different vantage points. There are Christians who believe in the rapture and those who don't. There are those who believe in predestination, and those who don't. None of that has any bearing on whether Sola Scriptura is correct or not, since Sola Scriptura does not address those issues.

The issue of Sola Scriptura is that you believe that the Bible is the final arbiter of truth. A person who believes in Sola Scriptura believes that their belief can be supported from Scripture and their appeal is based upon that belief. They do not make their appeal on the grounds that their preacher said so, or because board of trustees said so, or because general council or Synod of their denomination said so. Their appeal is to Scripture. Appealing to Scripture does not guarantee that everyone will agree on every point of doctrine. It simply means that their doctrines are in their view supported by Scripture. You are trying address issues that Sola Scriptura does not address, demonstrating your deficient knowledge in this issue.

Everyone of us sees through the glass darkly. There is no person who can claim with any credibility that they possess all of the spritual truth on any given passage in Scripture. That makes it all the more fool-hearty to vest the sole authority to interpret Scripture to one group of men, no matter how pious, charitable, or religious they may be. They are still men, and no amount of "tradition" will make anything infallible that comes from their mouths whether they are speaking "ex-Cathedra," or not. We are not always going to agree, because all of us are deficient in our understanding of Scripture.

As for Baptist history, Baptists are not protestants in the strictest sense. We did not break off from the Church of England. Our history goes back further than that. We have a timeline that parallels that of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church brutally persecuted the Baptists, going back to the Ana Baptists for the "heresy" of immersion, and refusing the hierchy of the RCC, refusing infant Baptism, and refusing Baptismal Regernation. I suggest you read The great Baptist preacher, J. M. Carroll on, "The Trail of Blood." It accounts for early Baptist suffering that the hands of the Catholic Church. Here is an excerpt where Carroll outlines the Mark of a New Testament Church. This is what Baptists have held to, for centuries:

"MARKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH"

1. Its Head and Founder--CHRIST. He is the law-giver; the Church is only the executive. (Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18)

2. Its only rule of faith and practice--THE BIBLE. (II Tim. 3:15-17)

3. Its name--"CHURCH," "CHURCHES." (Matt. 16:18; Rev. 22:16)

4. Its polity--CONGREGATIONAL--all members equal. (Matt. 20:24-28; Matt. 23:5-12)

5. Its members--only saved people. (Eph. 2:21; I Peter 2:5)

6. Its ordinances--BELIEVERS' BAPTISM, FOLLOWED BY THE LORD'S SUPPER. (Matt. 28:19-20)

7. Its officers--PASTORS AND DEACONS. (I Tim. 3:1-16)

8. Its work--getting folks saved, baptizing them (with a baptism that meets all the requirements of God's Word), teaching them ("to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"). (Matt. 28:16-20)

9. Its financial plan--"Even so (TITHES and OFFERINGS) hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel," (I Cor. 9:14)

10. Its weapons of warfare--spiritual, not carnal. (II Cor. 10:4; Eph. 6:10-20)

11. Its independence--separation of Church and State. (Matt. 22:21)

Our structure is based upon Scripture, not tradition, as you notice. Not that we don't have traditions, but they do receive the same affection and reverence as Scripture.

J. M. Carroll also says:

"It is well also for us all to do some serious and special thinking on another vital fact concerning the Bible. It has already been briefly mentioned in the lecture preceding this, but is so very vital that it will probably be wise to refer to it again. It was the action taken by the Catholics at the Council of Toulouse, held in 1229 A. D., when they decided to withhold the Bible, the Word of God from the vast majority of all their own people, the "Laymen." I am simply stating here just what they stated in their great Council. But lately in private a Catholic said to me, "Our purpose in that is to prevent their private interpretation of it." Isn't it marvelous that God should write a book for the people and then should be unwilling for the people to read it. And yet according to that book the people are to stand or fall in the day of judgment on the teachings of that book. No wonder the declaration in the book--"Search the Scriptures (the book) for in them ye think ye have eternal life. And they are they which testify of me." Fearful the responsibility assumed by the Catholics! "

[Pax]

Shiloh,

O.k. lets talk about other doctrinal issues that are splintering Protestant Churches. How about the Rapture, is your pastor for it against it. Some people read the Bible and take one verse out of context and now we have the Rapture theory. Others read the Bible and say there is nothing in the Bible about the Rapture. Do you believe in once saved always saved. Some Protestant buy into this whole heartily, other say no way. Do you believe in predestination? Do you believe in infant Baptism, probably not since you are Southern Baptist, but a Lutheran would. I used the example of Homosexuality to show how misguided some Churches become with no real authority. These are no small peripherals, but major issues. It is very scary when a pastor tells his church that once they profess that Jesus Christ died on the cross, then they can't lose their salvation. Just like you could point to scripture that would prove in your mind that once saved always saved, I could show scripture that says differently. So who has the authority???? It is very clear that Christ would have one visible Church led by a man, who was guided by the Holy Spirit. Mathew 16: 18-19. What is the only Church who can lay claim to succession back to Peter.

When did the Southern Baptist denomination take hold??? How about in the 17th century John Smith seperated from the Church of England. Eventually Baptist came to the United States and I assume that the Southern Baptist are an off shoot of John Smith's Church. More than likely someone read the bible and used their personal judgment to come up with a little different theology and now we have Southern Baptist. In the future we will probably have a Southeastern Baptist movement, and a Northern Baptist movement all claiming to have the bible and interpreted it the right way.

And by the way the Church of England broke off from the Catholic Church. Why did they break off from the Catholic church, because King Henry the VIII wanted to divorce his wife and the Catholic Church wouldn't allow it, so what's old King Henry do, he starts his own religion and makes himself head of the Church so that he can divorce his wife. Now we have the Church of England.

Part of the problem here, Pax, is that you are trying, evidently to define "unity" as comformity of belief and thought.

Sola Scriptura is not discredited because different people approach the Bible from different vantage points. There are Christians who believe in the rapture and those who don't. There are those who believe in predestination, and those who don't. None of that has any bearing on whether Sola Scriptura is correct or not, since Sola Scriptura does not address those issues.

The issue of Sola Scriptura is that you believe that the Bible is the final arbiter of truth. A person who believes in Sola Scriptura believes that their belief can be supported from Scripture and their appeal is based upon that belief. They do not make their appeal on the grounds that their preacher said so, or because board of trustees said so, or because general council or Synod of their denomination said so. Their appeal is to Scripture. Appealing to Scripture does not guarantee that everyone will agree on every point of doctrine. It simply means that their doctrines are in their view supported by Scripture. You are trying address issues that Sola Scriptura does not address, demonstrating your deficient knowledge in this issue.

Everyone of us sees through the glass darkly. There is no person who can claim with any credibility that they possess all of the spritual truth on any given passage in Scripture. That makes it all the more fool-hearty to vest the sole authority to interpret Scripture to one group of men, no matter how pious, charitable, or religious they may be. They are still men, and no amount of "tradition" will make anything infallible that comes from their mouths whether they are speaking "ex-Cathedra," or not. We are not always going to agree, because all of us are deficient in our understanding of Scripture.

As for Baptist history, Baptists are not protestants in the strictest sense. We did not break off from the Church of England. Our history goes back further than that. We have a timeline that parallels that of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church brutally persecuted the Baptists, going back to the Ana Baptists for the "heresy" of immersion, and refusing the hierchy of the RCC, refusing infant Baptism, and refusing Baptismal Regernation. I suggest you read The great Baptist preacher, J. M. Carroll on, "The Trail of Blood." It accounts for early Baptist suffering that the hands of the Catholic Church. Here is an excerpt where Carroll outlines the Mark of a New Testament Church. This is what Baptists have held to, for centuries:

"MARKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH"

1. Its Head and Founder--CHRIST. He is the law-giver; the Church is only the executive. (Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18)

2. Its only rule of faith and practice--THE BIBLE. (II Tim. 3:15-17)

3. Its name--"CHURCH," "CHURCHES." (Matt. 16:18; Rev. 22:16)

4. Its polity--CONGREGATIONAL--all members equal. (Matt. 20:24-28; Matt. 23:5-12)

5. Its members--only saved people. (Eph. 2:21; I Peter 2:5)

6. Its ordinances--BELIEVERS' BAPTISM, FOLLOWED BY THE LORD'S SUPPER. (Matt. 28:19-20)

7. Its officers--PASTORS AND DEACONS. (I Tim. 3:1-16)

8. Its work--getting folks saved, baptizing them (with a baptism that meets all the requirements of God's Word), teaching them ("to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"). (Matt. 28:16-20)

9. Its financial plan--"Even so (TITHES and OFFERINGS) hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel," (I Cor. 9:14)

10. Its weapons of warfare--spiritual, not carnal. (II Cor. 10:4; Eph. 6:10-20)

11. Its independence--separation of Church and State. (Matt. 22:21)

Our structure is based upon Scripture, not tradition, as you notice. Not that we don't have traditions, but they do receive the same affection and reverence as Scripture.

J. M. Carroll also says:

"It is well also for us all to do some serious and special thinking on another vital fact concerning the Bible. It has already been briefly mentioned in the lecture preceding this, but is so very vital that it will probably be wise to refer to it again. It was the action taken by the Catholics at the Council of Toulouse, held in 1229 A. D., when they decided to withhold the Bible, the Word of God from the vast majority of all their own people, the "Laymen." I am simply stating here just what they stated in their great Council. But lately in private a Catholic said to me, "Our purpose in that is to prevent their private interpretation of it." Isn't it marvelous that God should write a book for the people and then should be unwilling for the people to read it. And yet according to that book the people are to stand or fall in the day of judgment on the teachings of that book. No wonder the declaration in the book--"Search the Scriptures (the book) for in them ye think ye have eternal life. And they are they which testify of me." Fearful the responsibility assumed by the Catholics! "

Shiloh,

You seem like a very intelligent man or women but do you really think God intended for us to be confused on such matters as the Rapture, or OSAS, or Predestination etc. These are not minor issues, we are talking about ones salvation. You suggest that we all look through a glass darkly so we will all be confused to some degree. Does this make any logical sense? God will have all these Christians walking around in the dark, confused on major issues. Like I've said before, where is the truth??? Don't you think God would give all of us some direction and protection against false doctrines. And I will direct you back to Mathew 16:18-19. Christ makes it clear that there will only be one Church and Hell will not prevail against His church. He is also giving a mortal man, Peter, the keys to this Church. What ever he binds on earth will be bound on earth and what ever he binds in heaven will be bound in heaven. How do you explain this passage?

Let me also clear something up with you on Sola Scriptora. You claim that I don't understand this concept, so I will explain my position more. Scripture contains in one way or another all truths necessary for salvation, I believe this and so does the Catholic Church. The real argument between us is that you and many other protestants will claim that Scripture is so clear that no other outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. Which brings me back to my first point of Sola Scriptora. If you truely hold true to this notion of Sola Scriptora than you believe that each Christian is their own theologian and can intrepret the Bible how ever they want. This obviously makes no logical sense and explains why Protestantism has splintered into so many directions. But if I am understanding you right, it is o.k. if we all believe in different doctrines since we are all blinded???? This makes no logical sense.