Paul's Passing Thoughts

Another Protestant Misnomer: Inerrancy

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on July 7, 2015

Gospel T Copy_0This seems to be Protestant misnomer week here at PPT. I am fond of writing about the fact that everything that has ever come out of authentic Protestantism is a lie except for “Jesus Died for Our Sins,” and even that is a half-truth used in the commission of felonious theology.

This does not mean to say that every person who thinks they are a Protestant has no grasp of the truth; no, no, it means to say that they are misinformed and confused enough about true Protestantism to be saved. That’s a good thing, but one’s best life now is to properly understand what they call themselves.

To name a few misnomers that we talk about here at PPT, we have, elder authority, not in the Bible, we have church membership, not in the Bible, we have church discipline, not in the Bible, we have legalism, not in the Bible, we have Christian self-righteousness, not in the Bible, we have the church as the bride of Christ, not in the Bible, we have tithing, not a New Covenant concept; to name just a few. In this post, we will address the whole idea that Protestantism was founded on the inerrancy of Scripture.

This is not true. Not even close.

Protestantism was founded on the Redemptive Historical interpretation of Scripture. Sure, Protestant academia claims Grammatical Historical interpretation, but that is only for the purpose of coming to a Redemptive Historical conclusion; this is a classic example of Protestant doublespeak.

If you call yourself a Protestant, shouldn’t you know how the original Reformers interpreted Scripture? Here is a free booklet that explains all of this in detail; enjoy. It is an ebook that you can view and upload for free. Here is the link: Gospel T. ebook

Good luck in your journey to have your best life now by understanding what you call yourself.


6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. M. E. Quinn said, on July 7, 2015 at 5:39 PM

    Paul, I am enjoying your blog, but thought this link (below) had some points for you to consider.

    Is the New Jerusalem the Church or Israel? – STEM Publishing › Magazines › The Christian’s Friend › 1897
    1:24-27); but it is also true that he alludes to the church as the bride of Christ. No one, indeed, could read the scripture cited (chap. 5:25-27) without perceiving …


    • Paul M. Dohse Sr. said, on July 8, 2015 at 8:22 AM


      Verses used to present the “church” as the bride of Christ are illustrations to make other points. We are to love our wives “like” Christ loves the church. That doesn’t make the church the bride. Neither does a parable about being ready for Christ’s return, using Jewish wedding tradition, make the church the bride. In Revelation, the use of “the” bride is definitive. The church as bride rather than Jerusalem is an outflow of supersessionist/amillennialist theology, and the difference is “as/like” verses “the.”


  2. M. E. Quinn said, on July 8, 2015 at 9:08 AM

    Thanks, Paul. I’ll research that!


  3. Oasis said, on July 9, 2015 at 5:29 AM

    Thanks from me, too, Paul and Pearl. This is something I have been wanting to investigate one of these days.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s