Why do protestants belive that the Bible is superior to tradition.?

Question

I am not saying that the bible is not useful it certainly is but it clearly was never meant to be interpreted individualy.

Peter clearly said that the Bible was not to be interpreted by individuals. Why, well when that happens everybody comes to a different conclusion because they dont read it in light of what the first believers did.

Even after Luther rebeled against God there were 5 different denominations that disagreed with each other within a few months.

i just cant see anywhere in the bible where it says that the bible is the sole authority,

I know in timothy it talks about Scripture being beneficial but Paul is talking about the old testement as the new one wasnt written.

I know this often falls on brainwashed ears but doesnt anyone have any reasoning beyone just being told what to believe.

You can read how the first christians conducted church, you can read the traditions that the first churchs believed in light of scripture. Problem is many bible believing churches dont have this and as such make up what they want to believe.

Answer 1

Expect a bit of flaming in response to this one. People don't like being called out for their pettiness.

Answer 2

krissiepearse had a valid point, although some misconceptions.

At the time of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) (at the command of the pope) was selling indulgences. This is reprehensible behavior, and the RCC reversed this policy 50 years later. Nevertheless, it points out that in any sect, even one as careful as the RCC usually is, an evil teaching can become policy. In such a instance, are you saying that right-minded Christians should follow the dictates of the RCC and, for this example, have bought their way into heaven? Was this the *proper*, *Christian* thing to do at this time? If not, how would the average Christian have known that? The answer - only by reading the bible or, for the huge majority of illiterate people of the time, listening to someone *like* Martin Luther.

Remember, also, that it was not the intention of Martin Luther to cause sectarianism, but rather to more or less "overthrow" the present hierarchy of the RCC and have his own belief system (without a pope) adopted by the RCC. In other words, Martin Luther attempted to make changes from within the RCC and, failing that, attempted to start a religious idealogical revolution that would overthrow and replace the RCC leadership from without. He failed, miserably, but his intentions *were* good!

Therefore, you ought to be able to at least understand that many do not trust the teachings of any particular sect, and in particular (because of their history) the teachings of the RCC. How can an individual determine if a sect is following the teachings of Christ and the apostles? By believing that sect when they say that they are teaching right things? Obviously not, because *all* sects teach this! What measure can the Christian seeking truth use to measure the validity of any particular sects teachings? There is only one: the word of God.

Make no mistake: I agree that scripture is not the ultimate authority in these matters. However, it is without a doubt our most *reliable* authority in these matters. Popes change, but the words of the bible, even in our myriad of English translations, change little. Thus, the bible is, IMHO, more the "basic measure" of the validity of a sects teachings. If a sect teaches things that are contrary to the bible (for example, allowing women preachers or homosexual church members), then I know from the bible that these sects are not obedient to the word of God and the instructions provided by his inspired authors.

*Theoretically*, the pope could give a speech tomorrow permitting the ordination of women. What then should I follow - the dictates of a human, propagated by the sect that he heads, or the instructions of a man who is universally regarded by Christians to be inspired by God (i.e. Paul)? As a Christian, I *must* obey the words of God, even when contrary to the words of men.

So I hope you realize why so many trust the bible. Simply put, it is because they (rightly!) do not trust the teachings of men. Do not fault them if they cannot differentiate between the teachings of uninspired men, teachings originating with Jesus or his apostles, and inspired teachings that have been accumulated since that time. *I* cannot make this differentiation, and I doubt that you can, either.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 3

The protestant movement believed that the bible should be taken literally because it was the pure and untouched word of God... It's worth noticing that the protestant movement formed at a time where the Church (ie, the catholic church) was insisting that people could only reach God through the clergy (they higher in the clergy, the closer that person to God). They were also preaching things theat quite simply didn't exist anywhere in the bible, or anywhere else for that matter... such as purgatory for example - a great little money-maker for the church - pay us "x" amount of money and you'll get "y" number of years less torture for your sins before you get to heaven.

The church was able to do this because the Bible was in Latin - only the landed gentryfolk could read it as a general rule. For this reason, the protestant movement felt that the catholic church was corrupt, and had invented much of it's pomp and ceremony for it's own self-serving and self-gratifying ends... nd in fairness, they at least had a little bit of a point... the natural result is a swing in the other direction... to do away with anything that isn't in the bible, which not only meant a simpler lifestyle (and worship through living itself), but also allowed for the concept of a direct connection to God that all Christians are at liberty to entertain today.

It's a pretty typical example of a religious revolt... from one extreme to the other... There have been many wars faught between the two sides. There is nothing to say that either is absolutely right, though I think it fair to say that the protestants certainly have it in terms of reductionism if nothing else.

The trouble is, there's no reasoning with a movement of any sort, creed, or denomination... they aren't individuals, they're a group --and beware of people in large numbers. The individual is intelligent, while a crowd isn't.

Answer 4

The Bible is inspired -- God breathed. Tradition is just that, tradition and uninspired.

And you are right, many ears are brainwashed to believe the Bible is changeable during these Last Days.

We are told if anyone teaches any other gospel than what is taught, let him be cursed.

Answer 5

there's no historic evidence which shows that the Bible got here in the previous the Church; it become any opposite direction around. The Bible isn't self-authenticating. The leaps in logic to reach at a end that the Bible dictated itself or that God made adult men sensible sufficient to appreciate which books belonged to the Bible 200 years in the previous guy even have been given around to identifying it on the African Synods, is basically previous me.

Answer 6

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25).
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)
"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).
"‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12).

Answer 7

People will tell you anything. But even though they try and scare you with the curse at the end of the Bible. About anyone taking away from, or adding to the Word will be cursed.They all do it at their leisure.

Answer 8

Without Oral Tradition there would be no Bible:Mosaic tradition for the Old Testament and Apostolic Tradition for the New.

Answer 9

I wonder the same thing. the Church came first before the Bible, not the other way around.

Answer 10

I totally one hundred percent agree with you and am confused as well.

There are over 60,000 different Chrisian denominations in the U.S. alone. That's how many different ways to read the Bible?