Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[Anto9us]

(I may consider myself HONORARY SOLA SCRIPTURA)

 

[W2L]

Yeah...

we'll have to WATCH THAT, W2L -- else we might wind up in sects of RCC, Orthodox, Protestant - etc

that TRADITION is a tricky one
but you have to admit --
the SCOPE OF ONE'S SCRIPTURE is determined by their tradition !!

too many books
too few books
in that old Bible

depending on ye tradition

Exactly.

 

[W2L]

it all comes down to
infallible texts
infallible guide

we got the Word
we got the Ghost !

Amen.

 

[Anto9us]

I don't think anything in them POCKY-PHAH books makes a dimes worth of difference anyhow

I read 'em

in ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE
and New Jerusalem Bible

jest keep plowin down ROUTE 66

 

[thecolorsblend]

If I've got this right, it looks like the party line on this is...

01- Sacred scripture is the only authority.
02- Sacred scripture isn't always very clear.

 

[Anto9us]

yeah, the colorsblend --
kindy sounds like POPES and COUNCILS, huh?

 

[W2L]

If I've got this right, it looks like the party line on this is...

01- Sacred scripture is the only authority.
02- Sacred scripture isn't always very clear.

On a personal level the scriptures are enough. They are actually more than enough. Who needs to argue over traditions and theological differences? I choose liberty from all that.

 

[Anto9us]

when I kissed the Pope's slipper

i was crossing two of my teeth

 

[thecolorsblend]

On a personal level the scriptures are enough. They are actually more than enough. Who needs to argue over traditions and theological differences? I choose liberty from all that.

The "liberty" you choose is perpetual disagreement over even the basics of Christian doctrine while the body's unity fragments more and more each year?

Ever since Martin Luther first nailed stuff to doorways, Protestants seem to want to relitigate the faith every generation. And so far, it looks as though they chip more and more away from the faith every time.

Assuming Protestantism even has another hundred years, I think it's fair to ask if it will even be recognizably Christian anymore because of how much it might have jettisoned by that point.

 

[Tree of Life]

If I've got this right, it looks like the party line on this is...

01- Sacred scripture is the only authority.
02- Sacred scripture isn't always very clear.

We do not say that Scripture is the only authority for the Christian. Christians are also called to submit to their churches, to governments, slaves are called to submit to masters, wives to husbands, children to parents, etc.

We say that the Scriptures are the only infallible authority. Governments, churches, husbands, masters, and parents can all be wrong and often are wrong in their judgments. But the Bible is never wrong because it is the word of God. The Bible uniquely stands over all other authorities being the only word of God and only infallible rule.

The Bible is sufficiently clear. But it is not exhaustively clear. Even the Bible says that some things in the Bible are hard to understand.

 

[Anto9us]

Ever since Bishop of Rome tried to excommunicate another patriarch, Catholics seem to want to relitigate the faith every generation. And so far, it looks as though they chip more and more away from the faith every time.

well, so say your own critics of Vatican II -- makin the faith unrecognizable, blah blah blah

 

[Tree of Life]

Ever since Bishop of Rome tried to excommunicate another patriarch, Catholics seem to want to relitigate the faith every generation. And so far, it looks as though they chip more and more away from the faith every time.

well, so say your own critics of Vatican II -- makin the faith unrecognizable, blah blah blah

Indeed. Rome departed from the catholic church a long time ago.

 

[Anto9us]

the original schismatics -- still the Pot trying to call the Kettle black

 

[W2L]

The "liberty" you choose is perpetual disagreement over even the basics of Christian doctrine while the body's unity fragments more and more each year?

Ever since Martin Luther first nailed stuff to doorways, Protestants seem to want to relitigate the faith every generation. And so far, it looks as though they chip more and more away from the faith every time.

Assuming Protestantism even has another hundred years, I think it's fair to ask if it will even be recognizably Christian anymore because of how much it might have jettisoned by that point.

The true body is not fragmented. Christs body is not divided.

Psalm 25:14 The secret of the Lord is with those who fear Him,
And He will show them His covenant.

 

[thecolorsblend]

We do not say that Scripture is the only authority for the Christian. Christians are also called to submit to their churches, to governments, slaves are called to submit to masters, wives to husbands, children to parents, etc.

What's this "we" stuff? A lot of "sola scriptura" adherents even on this forum don't abide by the same view you describe above.

We say that the Scriptures are the only infallible authority. Governments, churches, husbands, masters, and parents can all be wrong and often are wrong in their judgments.

So, humanly speaking, the Church wrote the New Testament and was protected from error during that process. The Church went on to compile the biblical canon and was similarly protected from error during that entire process.

But the Church won't (or can't?) be protected from error at any other time in any other context?

The Bible is sufficiently clear. But it is not exhaustively clear.

Doesn't that set the bar rather low? The Holy Spirit could've clarified a few (or a lot of) sections and saved the Protestant ecclesial communities a lot of unnecessary disunity, right? Surely that would've been preferable to being in such doctrinal disagreement with each other, wouldn't it?

 

[thecolorsblend]

The true body is not fragmented. Christs body is not divided.

The only way that can possibly be true is if doctrine is a completely irrelevant concept.

And if doctrine is a completely irrelevant concept, why even have scriptures at all?

 

[Anto9us]

The only way that can possibly be true is if doctrine is a completely irrelevant concept.

Says you.

Who are you to determine "the only way something can possibly be true..."

You merely HAVE AN OPINION

 

[W2L]

The only way that can possibly be true is if doctrine is a completely irrelevant concept.

And if doctrine is a completely irrelevant concept, why even have scriptures at all?

So its your assertion that Gods body is divided? A divided house cant stand however.

 

[Tree of Life]

What's this "we" stuff? A lot of "sola scriptura" adherents even on this forum don't abide by the same view you describe above.

I can only claim to speak for the Westminster (Reformed) view of Sola Scriptura. So when I say "we" I mean Westminster, Reformed believers. The definition of Sola Scriptura that I defend is: "The Bible alone is the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice." I think you're just diverting by claiming that there's not even a clear, agreed upon definition of Sola Scriptura. Just deal with the one I'm defending here.

So, humanly speaking, the Church wrote the New Testament and was protected from error during that process. The Church went on to compile the biblical canon and was similarly protected from error during that entire process.

But the Church won't (or can't?) be protected from error at any other time in any other context?

The New Testament was not written by "the church" in the sense that the Catholic Church publishes her dogmas. The New Testament was written by specific men, apostles, prophets, and evangelists, who were chosen by God just like the OT prophets. More than this, the NT was written by God the Holy Spirit through these men.

The church did not authoritatively compile the canon or choose the canon. The church recognized the canon and agreed with God. God chose the canon because all the canonical books are divinely inspired.

The Holy Spirit does protect the church at large and guide her into all truth. And the Holy Spirit guided the church in her recognition of the canon. But this does not mean that the church never errs. We see examples of the church erring even within the New Testament and nowhere in the NT is it taught that the church is infallible and that her judgments are as authoritative as God's written word.

And even if this were the case (which it is not), the NT does not teach that the Roman church is the seat of this infallible authority. The church of Jesus Christ is much larger than the Roman church and a large section of Jesus' church disagrees with many of Rome's doctrines and conclusions.

Doesn't that set the bar rather low? The Holy Spirit could've clarified a few (or a lot of) sections and saved the Protestant ecclesial communities a lot of unnecessary disunity, right? Surely that would've been preferable to being in such doctrinal disagreement with each other, wouldn't it?

The Scripture is clear on the essentials and this should encourage unity. The Scripture is not entirely clear on everything and this creates room for different views and respectful disagreement. The Scripture is silent on some things and this leaves room for private judgment.

The church has no right, like the Roman church has many times done, to make authoritative statements on things that are unclear or unsaid in Scripture and bind the consciences of men to these things. Where the Bible is unclear or silent, Christians have the right to disagree with one another.

 

[Tree of Life]

@thecolorsblend just to clarify your position...

do you deny that the Scriptures are sufficiently clear?