First of all, I would like to commend you for keeping this conversation friendly. I see now my use of the word heretic, though technically correct, was a bit out of place, especially given the fact that the author never had a chance to respond. We agree that one must be careful when we write or teach about the faith. Our practice of it is much simpler - we just do it - rather than trying to explain it. I work in a technical field that sometimes requires me to write technical explanations on how to do maintenance. Try to imagine the difference between using a spoon to eat corn flakes, and then try to write EXACTLY how to do it! Perhaps the idea of why dogmatic declarations take so long to get down on paper is best explained by that!
You said "...Of course I use the Bible alone, I have never stated anything else. But when you capitalize both words as in 'Bible Alone' or use 'Sola Scriptura' you are using what should be a description as a label. As I stated, most who claim these labels don't actually practice them. I refuse to be included in those groups. I admit that could be considered a peeve of mine, but so be it."
I am not sure exactly what you mean here. I presumed correctly that you believe in using the Bible alone, although you don't like the label because some don't actually practice it? In corresponding with other Protestants, I agree that many claim to follow it, but don't practice it. That is why I find this an illogical idea (Bible Alone). We both agree that WHAT is Scripture came from outside the Bible, right? This, plus my statements about oral tradition that still remain in effect as binding are difficult to refute for Protestants. A clarification would be appreciated by what you mean regarding the nuances of the above paragraph.
"How can we know anything about God except through divine revelation. As I don't believe in post-apostolic revelation nor in apostolic succession, for me, there is no other possibility."
Fair enough. I would like to present to you two things: First, the Church itself believed in apostolic succession, even seen in the Pastoral Epistles themselves. Secondly, and not trying to be a smart guy, but because one doesn't believe something doesn't make it not true, correct? I would challenge you to read what the first couple of generations believed in to get a good idea of what the Church was like, rather than being anachronistic and presuming that the first Church had distinctly Protestant beliefs (such as Bible alone). The Eucharist is a case in point. While these men were not infallible as individuals, it is hard to believe that the first generation following the Apostles could get it so wrong.
The idea of faith is that we trust someone. In this case, we are trusting the Early Church to hand down to us the Word of God. If we can trust them to give us the Scripture (recall, there are now Gnostic scriptures floating around, as seen in Divinci Code - really, who is to say that they are not the actual Scriptures - unless we don't have faith in that claim) correctly and completely, we should also trust that they worshiped, believed, and defined our faith correctly. We have faith in this because it is backed up by the promise Jesus gave to us that He would be with us always and the Spirit would be sent to us. In other words, God Himself is backing up these teachings (so we believe)
"It was not about who had the better understanding but whether the teacher was fair and just for testing us on information we had not been made aware of."
OK. There is a fine line between being ignorant of teachings and refusal to accept teachings revealed (considering Christianity is a revealed religion, it is important that we determine our ultimate source). I also believe (as does the Church) that such ignorant people who are unaware of the Church will be judged as such on what they know and how they lived their lives. That is why the Church can reach out to Muslims, for example. But when one knows the teachings of the Church and refuses to believe them, that is another story. There is the fine line.
"But I felt the critcism should be in that respect as opposed to making judgements on one as being a false teacher (heretic is the word I believe you used)"
I humbly ask for the apology of anyone who was offended by my careless use of the word "heretic". It was hasty, and it would have been better to point out the error, without the judgement. Thank you for your correction, brother.
In Christ
As Dennis Prager often says; "It's more important to have clarity than agreement". I'm glad we have had this chance to clarify each others positions.
Granted my resisitance to labels may seem strange, but in order to clarify I must object (for sake of example only) once again to your use of one. I do not consider myself a 'Protestant'. I am protesting nothing. I consider myself a Christian (Acts 11:26) only. I pattern my worship and beliefs after those of the first century church. As it was delivered by the Holy Spirit, it was recorded for us. As I have already stated my postion on revelation, these two should logically equate to an insistance on book, chapter and verse for what is to be bound religiously.
The Bible as God's revealed word must be both sufficent and efficient for our salvation. If a doctrine states what the Bible already states, it is at best redundant; if it states something different than the Bible, it is superfluous to our salvation. I believe God is best suited to tell us his desires, and we are best advised to follow them. Thus my comment about letting the 'Word of God' be the word of God.
Most of the labels that I resist actually come from the different 'isms' developed by men and not from the Bible. Having left a man-made religion for the Lord's church, I no longer wish to be associated with those labels. It is in fact these labels that many times blind believers to the truth. Many who profess belief follow after men rather than God. As often happens, the meaning of a phrase (Sola Scriptura) is most often lost as it is used as an identifier among those of like mind; with little concern as to whether it is actually followed.
I hope this clarifies my position.