Hi. I'm a former Catholic and now non-denominational follower of Christ

[37818]

So Bible alonism was breaking from the Apostles interpretation of Scripture to human interpretation of scripture, and human founded churches.

John Smyth after leaving the Church of England decided that credo Baptism was to be his new doctrine, so pure human interpretation, pure human tradition.n

John Smyth was not an Apostle, he was a false teacher the Apostles warned about.

The New Testament documents on the tenet they are genuine are first century Holy Scripture would be our sole Apostolic authority handed down to us.

Now it wasn't a Catholic Church that won me to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. But but persons from a local Baptist church at my families door inviting us to attend their church. Offered a ride to church. And it was that Sunday between Sunday school and the morning preaching service I was shown how I could be sure of Heaven. That was the summer of 1962. I knew then and know now. Do you?

 

[Cathode]

The New Testament documents on the tenet they are genuine are first century Holy Scripture would be our sole Apostolic authority handed down to us.

The New Testament documents are genuine first century, but your interpretations of them isn’t, they are 1500s onward human interpretations.

Have the first century Scriptures and the first century interpretations of them and you will be fine.

Now it wasn't a Catholic Church that won me to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. But but persons from a local Baptist church at my families door inviting us to attend their church. Offered a ride to church. And it was that Sunday between Sunday school and the morning preaching service I was shown how I could be sure of Heaven. That was the summer of 1962. I knew then and know now. Do you?

Which would you prefer, the Apostles interpretation and understanding of Scripture or your own?

 

[37818]

The New Testament documents are genuine first century, but your interpretations of them isn’t, they are 1500s onward human interpretations.

Have the first century Scriptures and the first century interpretations of them and you will be fine.

Which would you prefer, the Apostles interpretation and understanding of Scripture or your own?

Luke 4:4, And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Now you didn't answer my question.

. . . I was shown how I could be sure of Heaven. That was the summer of 1962. I knew then and know now. Do you?

 

[Ben1445]

Which would you prefer, the Apostles interpretation and understanding of Scripture or your own?

Basically, from your point of view, we have our own understanding of Scripture, but in the same sense, you have your own understanding of the apostle’s interpretation of Scripture. If Scripture is the goal, and it should be, then it is more direct to follow the first pattern instead of a copy of a copy of a copy of a pattern. Your understanding of Scripture is influenced by your indoctrination of faulty assumptions so that when people are told that they are more noble for searching Scripture, you think it means that they took oral tradition and didn’t search Scripture. Your application of the language is way off.

 

[Cathode]

Basically, from your point of view, we have our own understanding of Scripture, but in the same sense, you have your own understanding of the apostle’s interpretation of Scripture. If Scripture is the goal, and it should be, then it is more direct to follow the first pattern instead of a copy of a copy of a copy of a pattern.

Correct, we agree.
From our perspective it is testable however.

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9 (A.D. 244).

So in Origens day they received the tradition from the Apostles of infant baptism and viewed water Baptism as Regenerational.
So 1781 years ago Origen attests that regenerational infant Baptism is traced to the Apostles by their tradition handed down.

So who still holds to this today?

If we went back 1800 years, which of us would have Origens understanding of Scripture which he said was from The Apostles.

Where did credo Baptism come from in your tradition? John Smyth declared infants should no longer be baptised, which stood against all Christianity at the time 1609 and all Christianity back to the Apostles.

So this doctrine has human interpretation not an Apostolic interpretation.

People who follow this doctrine aren’t following the Bible, they are following John Smyth.

Your understanding of Scripture is influenced by your indoctrination of faulty assumptions so that when people are told that they are more noble for searching Scripture, you think it means that they took oral tradition and didn’t search Scripture. Your application of the language is way off.

What made them more noble is that they weren’t Scripture alone, and they listened to Paul’s Oral Tradition, the Spoken Word of God.

If the Bereans were Scripture alone they would have rejected everything Paul said as unscriptural. And all they had was Old Testament writings.
No Jew or Christian was Scripture alone, that was a heresy that came one and a half millenia later.

So Catholics maintain the singular ancient Apostles interpretation of Scripture and Bible aloners any man’s interpretation of scripture. That’s why they divided into countless denominations all on each man’s interpretation and opinion. All in conflict with the other.