Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

FenderTL5 said:

If so, What is the purpose of preaching/teaching?

Click to expand...

If one applies Sola Scriptura they will come to realize preaching and teaching are vital functions of the church.

straykat said:

This thread is precisely why I'm not Sola Scriptura. Or rather, I like the idea.. but the practice of it leads nowhere. People can't even agree on what applies to them in scripture. On one hand, I see the Thief on the Cross as well as John as archetypes.. on the other, some interpreters are so literal that they don't see themselves in this.

Click to expand...

Actually your comments have little to do with Sola Scriptura but it does apply to how one interprets the text. One either applies exegesis or eisegesis to the text.

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

redleghunter said:

Actually your comments have little to do with Sola Scriptura but it does apply to how one interprets the text. One either applies exegesis or eisegesis to the text.

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

Click to expand...

Kind of an extreme word to use, for simply applying things to discipleship in general. It also makes the Gospel of John strangely mundane and banal, when it is never either one of those things. If the authors simply wanted to depict events in a historical/contextual sense, they could have done so much better. Like describe in details.. or list the time Jesus pet a cat or ate an olive or any other number of useless things that weren't meant for anyone.

It's funny though seeing the measures people go to rebel against anything remotely Catholic. Even when Catholicism isn't involved. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

d
r
i
p
drip em drip em

d
u
n
k
dunk em dunk em

drip em dunk em
that's our custom
Yaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy RAMS!!

(sorry, Rams was my HS mascot)

I personally don't believe in "withholding communion" based on denominations
its because as a Methodist growing up -- ANY BELIEVER could come to the table and get our Welch's grape juice and hard little cracker
(which my sister took a WHOLE HANDFUL OF one sunday, til my grandmother made her put em back)

In all thoroughness, it is not only RCC and Ortho that limit full communion to those within their Denom

Missouri Synod Lutherans restrict communion to members of the Denom; perhaps other Prot denoms do the same

In college I went to such a Lutheran Church - not due to theological reasons, but because of Barbara, well, I liked her, and I liked the volleyball games the young people played on wed and sun nites and on campouts

Once I was at the net - and jumped up and spiked the ball with my fist as hard as I could.

Right into Barbara's nose. Point blank range.

Talk about wishing the ground would open up and swallow you.

I had bloodied her nose before I ever kissed her.

BNR32FAN said:

What significance can apostolic succession have or the keys given to Peter if Peter established both the church in Antioch and the church in Rome and yet they don’t agree on doctrine or tradition?

Click to expand...

Don't want to answer for our esteemed Roman Catholic friends, but perhaps the answer is "well we believe on the essentials." Which if I am correct was the point @Tree of Life made for Protestants.

VERILY VERILY i SAY UNTO YOU - EXCEPT YE BE BOILED AS A CUCUMBER
ye cannot be a pickle in the Kingdom of God

Athanasius377 said:

Two questions.

First. Where can I find a copy of Tradition that you mention. Could you provide link to Amazon or Barnes and Noble or just about any bookstore?

Second. Could you site the source of the Luther comment? That is the fourth iteration I have seen you use in the last few months.

Click to expand...

You could start with the diadache

FenderTL5 said:

That's not what you said before, but OK, this I agree with, as far as it goes.

However, it doesn't answer my question; if what ToL said is true, what is the purpose of preaching/teaching?
Why is the Great Commission not, "Go hand out copies of the scripture.."
Did Phillip err when he taught the Eunuch? Shouldn't he have just said, "..the Scriptures are able, all on their own, to tell a person all they need to know in order to be saved and to live a life pleasing to God..."

Click to expand...

This is my understanding of what @Tree of Life was getting at:

John 20: NKJV
30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

The Beloved Apostle states clearly one can just read his account and come to belief in Jesus as the Christ and that believing we may have life in His name.

Not to discount how our gifts living our lives in Christ's Name are to no effect, as we know the following:

Romans 12: NKJV
3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. 4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; 8 he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

redleghunter said:

I guess our Roman Catholic friends here want Protestants to take responsibility for those out of the faith, but they won't

Click to expand...

On the contrary, I'm a firm believer in policing one's own.

redleghunter said:

For some reason we are to 'take responsibility' for apostates, snake handlers, Mormons, JWs, Oneness adherents and every hole in the wall chapel and prosperity gospel mega stadium.

Click to expand...

I haven't said that. Nor would I say that.

In relation to the Mormons and the JW's specifically, blaming Protestants for those strange brew cults is simply wrong headed. Addressing Mormons and JW's specifically, they're non-Trinitarian. I have many many points of disagreement with the Protestants. But I will acknowledge that they endeavor to be Trinitarian. And that counts for a lot.

redleghunter said:

Anything not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (the other One True Church) is "Protestant."

Click to expand...

I take it you object to that criterion. Fair enough.

Protestant means something. Protest is baked into the name of the movement. So if the Protestants are protesting something or someone, what or who are they protesting? If you simply don't like the Protestant moniker, what label can you think of which adequately distinguishes your group from Catholics and Orthodox?

redleghunter said:

Yet, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, the Kennedy family, bishops giving communion to unrepentant homosexuals and other visible unrepentant sinners,

Click to expand...

This is no small source of scandal among Catholics. However, I should say that the people you mention specifically have, by their own actions, ex-communicated themselves. It would be a bit redundant for the Church to formalize that. Maybe that would pacify some of the angrier Catholics out there but the task is already completed.

That means that if those people receive the Blessed Sacrament without being properly restored into communion, they're in seriously deep trouble. Deeper, perhaps, than anything the Church can do to them.

Tree of Life said:

The RCC and EO teach that the people of God need ordained clergy in order to tell them what the Bible means - otherwise they are without hope.

Click to expand...

No the RCC does not teach that. The RCC teaches that literacy, and therefore the Bible, are completely unnecessary for either hope or salvation. The Bible is great for teaching, but it is not necessary.

BNR32FAN said:

I disagree because the RCC changed the original doctrines and teachings of the church and the Orthodox Church didn’t.

Click to expand...

Whatever you say.

redleghunter said:

Whoa back up the truck (beep, beep, beep). Noticed you slipped in "Christology." No, Protestants are Christians and Christians do not deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Please stop having Christians take responsibility for organizations which deny the deity of our Christ.

Click to expand...

"Can have". And it's true. I have seen it and heard it for myself. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

BNR32FAN said:

The apostles didn’t have scriptures to hand out when the Great Commission was commanded which is why they wrote the scriptures. To ensure that their teachings would be passed on and survive throughout the ages untainted and unchanged over time.

Click to expand...

They did however, have the OT scriptures which they quoted quite often to prove their claims and preach the Gospel. If we look at Acts 2, 3 and 10 Peter extensively used the OT to preach the Gospel of Christ crucified, died, Risen from the dead, ascended into Heaven seated on His Throne.

Jesus even told them where they could find Him in the Scriptures (Luke 24:44-50)

☦Marius☦ said:

You could start with the diadache

Click to expand...

For anyone interested; Follow-up:
Link to Didache here

thecolorsblend said:

Whatever you say.

Click to expand...

If you disagree can you please share some of the doctrine and tradition changes of the Orthodox Church?

thecolorsblend said:

I should say that the people you mention specifically have, by their own actions, ex-communicated themselves.

Click to expand...

jeez

an automatic "No true Scotsman"

poppy-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]

straykat said:

Kind of an extreme word to use, for simply applying things to discipleship in general. It also makes the Gospel of John strangely mundane and banal, when it is never either one of those things. If the authors simply wanted to depict events in a historical/contextual sense, they could have done so much better. Like describe in details.. or list the time Jesus pet a cat or ate an olive or any other number of useless things that weren't meant for anyone.

It's funny though seeing the measures people go to rebel against anything remotely Catholic. Even when Catholicism isn't involved. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying what is written in Holy Scriptures does not have application in our lives. They obviously do. What I'm saying is we do so by drawing the truth out of the scriptures and not stuffing in our preconceived notions.

We should exegete what God is communicating in the passage at hand to the actual person or audience first before injecting ourselves into the equation. For example, as attached in pdf format.

redleghunter said:

I guess you can call that historic Protestantism.

Click to expand...

I laughed at that, I won't lie.

redleghunter said:

What you have after that are certain movements which both Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox would all agree are heretical such as Oneness Pentecostalism (a form of modalism), snake handlers, Shakers and quite a few others which spawned from the 3rd Great Awakening in mid to last 19th century. For some reason such are lumped with Protestants

Click to expand...

I will agree that grouping them all together is wrongheaded.

However, I've found plenty of those obnoxious Truly Reformed types who either don't understand or else don't value the significant differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. One example can be found at Hank Hanegraaff Chrismated Into Eastern Orthodoxy-Apostasy, Theosis

Now, the obvious disclaimer here is that the shrilly host of that podcast doesn't speak for the whole of Protestantism. That should go without saying. Nobody speaks for the whole of Protestantism. Indeed, nobody can.

I link to it only to say that the differences between the traditional Christian Churches is often not recognized or valued by the non-traditional types. So clearly we all have some work to do here.

redleghunter said:

I would also like to note Catholic apologists try to lump in Mormonism, JWs and many other cults as "Protestant" because they are not Roman Catholic. That has led to the specious 33,000 denominations. If you did not catch my earlier posts here is an article from the National Catholic Register which is very informative:

Click to expand...

I commented about that above. However, I'd like to add here that I'm a convert. I spent plenty of time in my youth and even adulthood in the Protestant world, particularly the evangelical wing of it. I'm quite clear on the real and vast differences between Protestantism and Mormon wackadooism.

But I find that a lot of cradle Catholics are not. I've seen those types writing blogs, posting messages on CF, etc, and without a hint of malice they hold Mormonism in the same breath as Protestant evangelicalism.

I submit to you that this type of cradle Catholic might be the counterpart for the above mentioned Truly Reformed zealot, who can probably recite the entire New Testament by heart but can't grasp that the Pope is not understood to have any level of oversight over Orthodox parishes. The type of Catholic you refer to (which may or may not be a cradle Catholic, to be fair, just saying they're the ones who exhibit this tendency the most, I've noticed) seems very similar.

So, again, maybe having some grace for each other would go a long way.

RDKirk said:

No. Anabaptists, for instance, traditionally reject any "creed" on principle because of denominational history, but they do not reject the beliefs stated by the Apostle's Creed. You have to ask the question correctly.

Click to expand...

I asked the question the way I intended to. Your nuanced answer tells me you know exactly how widely accepted the Apostles Creed might not actually be.

To be fair, I was originally thinking of the "restoration movement"/No Creed But Christ folks, who are not obligated to agree on too much of anything. I briefly (very briefly) hung around a Disciples Of Christ ecclesial community and heard all manner of strange ideas. Baptism? Not needed. Our Lord's miracles? Never happened. Virgin Birth? Let's get serious here. Resurrection? Ha!

Again to be fair, not necessarily the entire congregation believed not necessarily all those things. But heretical rejection of core doctrine was not thought unusual or cause for concern. "Everybody has an opinion" seemed to be the attitude.

If the DOC aren't considered "Protestant" then we need to recognize that the word's definition has been changed to something else.

☦Marius☦ said:

You could start with the diadache

Click to expand...

Read it several times. Very simple and reflects the traditions of that particular and unknown local church.

Which I will mention there are traditions in there which are now condemned by both Rome and the EOs. Specifically chiliasm.