Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

BNR32FAN · Apr 16, 2018

I’m not convinced that the EO official position is that the scriptures cannot be properly interpreted outside of the EO Church. It is my understanding that their position has been the opposite and it is possible for someone to correctly interpret the scriptures outside of the EO church. I believe it is the RCC that had that official ruling that salvation can only be found in the Catholic Church.

W2L · Apr 16, 2018

TuxAme said:
If Jesus alone can unite, then He certainly doesn't do it through Scripture Alone.

Where alone are the Lords words found?

redleghunter · Apr 16, 2018

thecolorsblend said:
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?

Disunity in what ways?

@Anto9us is Methodist we have differences yet will share the Lord's Supper together. Yet the EOs won't even let you take communion with them.

BNR32FAN · Apr 16, 2018

Poor translations from Hebrew and Greek to English have cause much confusion in interpretation. Examples would be metanoia to repent, pistis to faith, pecel to images. These are just a few examples of inaccurate translations that cause many people to misinterpret the Bible.

redleghunter · Apr 16, 2018

TuxAme said:
Scripture doesn't stand alone, if that's what your question is. When you force Scripture to do so, you have chaos- a hundred, a thousand, and a high estimate places the number at 40,000 different denominations all claiming Scripture to be "sufficiently clear" (whatever that should mean) while all are tugging in radically different directions.

And Satan is laughing all the way to the bank.

You may want to review this:

We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

I would think you would agree that our actions show what we believe. Even in polls. Meaning even having 10,000 churches does not mean disunity.

Evangelicals are actually more unified than Catholics are on several issues.

http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html#THEOLOGICAL

redleghunter · Apr 16, 2018

PaulCyp1 said:
Seems like the existence of thousands of conflicting manmade denominations who can't agree with one another about the meaning of a single scriptural passage should be proof enough that Sola Scripture does not and cannot result in scriptural truth. Truth cannot conflict with truth, and conflicting beliefs therefore necessarily mean false beliefs. Scripture itself tells us that Jesus Christ founded ONE Church, that He said it was to remain ONE, and that He promised that ONE Church, and no other, "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". 2,000 years later, that ONE Church remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship, ONE in scriptural understanding, with NO conflicting denominations. Seriously, what more do you need?

Love the rhetoric. That surely sufficed for an assertion .

redleghunter · Apr 16, 2018

TuxAme said:
I say that I wouldn't know what makes up Scripture at all if Jesus' Church hadn't come together to make the determination.

If I gave you a copy of the gospel of John and the apocryphal gospel of Thomas, you could not decipher which is divinely inspired over the other?

That one can hear the Voice of the Good Shepherd clearly in the Gospel according to John, but not as clear and quite fuzzy in Thomas?

Where did Jesus say we can find Him?

redleghunter · Apr 16, 2018

Tree of Life said:
Please answer the question.

Isn't it clear? The answer is clear to me. They need a self assured infallible magisterium to decipher truth.

Even though Christianity began by souls led by God to an itinerant preacher who was in opposition to the then seat of Moses, their magisterium. In opposition in such a way that said itinerant preacher rebuked this magisterium often using the very words of God from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Mountainmike · Apr 17, 2018

If it was sufficiently clear: Then Why do all protestant groups disagree and are poles apart even on the the very essentials?
Take baptism. The method, applicability, necessity, formula and efficacy are all disputed - yet this is the entry point to salvation. Do you really think Jesus would lead most of his followers astray?
The objective reality is it proves scripture is not enough, since all of those variants
believe sola scriptura is true, and they all supplement scripture with tradition, some written such as articles and confessions. Why so if scripture is enough, why then does the westminster confession even exist? And how come the number and content of articles of early anglicanism, blew with the winds of the monarchs beliefs towards and away from calvinism?

Or Take salvation. OSAS, saved but can lose it, not saved till the end, predestined one way or borth. These are all variants taught by protestants
Even "what is faith" protestants cannot agree on , whether it is intellectual assent or formed faith with charity , or faith with charity and hope.

And you disagree because of the falasy that is sola scriptura.
It was simply not true in the early church.
Even simple logic refutes it.
And scripture disagrees since it says "the household of God is the foundation of truth" which is clearly physical or how can you "behave in it"
You cannot even know what scripture is without the authority of the church and tradition.

I once heard a video that put this into perspective.
This is more than a joke - but a very serious statement.

So a protestant speaks on some part of the epistles. And apostle Paul comes to him and says "But that is not what I meant at all"

( which considering you all think it means different things is clearly true of some or most of you)

Shut up says the protestant to Paul - we dont care what you think what you wrote means.. dont you know it is scripture alone? WE decide what it means, not you.

Sola scriptura was a manmade tradition of the reformation.
Luther lamented it in later life saying " it is the greatest scandal" "there are now as many doctrine as heads"
If only he could see how much worse his monster is now.

And you are wrong. The reason we believe in authority and tradition, is because that is what scripture says affirmed in tradition. Jesus breathed on the apostles and sent them to teach. He gave them the power to "Bind and loose" ie pronounce infallibly on doctrine both jointly and peter alone who is also made chief pastor "tend my sheep". Thats why Paul says "Hold true to tradition we taught you" and also "how can they teach if they have not been sent" Jesus did not say "write this" or "read this" and without the church you would not know what is scripture, which were false gospels (of which there were many) from true ones.

Tree of Life said:
The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a complex doctrine which is made of many parts. So in order to defend and prove it we need to establish its basic parts. One important part is the clarity of Scripture.

The Westminster Confession of Faith says of the Bible...

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture of other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (WCF 1.7)

It's a nuanced statement that affirms:

Not every passage of Scripture is equally clear in itself. Some passages are difficult to interpret.

Not every passage of Scripture is equally clear to all people. Adults understand parts of Scripture that children don't. Married people understand parts of Scripture that single people don't. Educated people understand parts of Scripture that uneducated people don't. Poor people understand parts of Scripture that rich people don't. Etc...

Yet the things that are necessary for salvation (things to be known, believed, and obeyed) are so clearly laid out in some place or another that anyone can gain a sufficient understanding of them. This includes clergy and laity, educated and uneducated, men and women, adults and children, etc... Of course the caveat is that people have to put some work into understanding the Bible. This is what is meant by the "due use of ordinary means."

The basic idea is that the Bible is sufficiently clear. The most important things in Scripture - things necessary to salvation - are able to be understood by all based on their own reading and study of Scripture.

This doctrine is called the clarity of Scripture. This doctrine is implied in many places in Scripture. Here are just a few:

Psalm 119:130 - The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.

Proverbs 1:4 - to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 - 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

Acts 17:11 - Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

1 John 2:27 - 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

Other Scriptures could be cited. But in sum we see that the Bible is able to make the simple wise. The unlearned can read it and grow in knowledge of God. Also the common people of Israel were commanded to know God's word and teach it to their children. This implies that God's word is able to be understood. Furthermore, the Jews in Berea were counted noble because they searched the Scriptures for themselves to test the apostles' preaching.

This stands in contradiction to RCC and EO teaching. According to these traditions, the Scriptures are not sufficiently clear. In the Medieval era before the Reformation it was illegal in many places for private Christians to gather together to read the Bible. And the Bible was not translated into the common language because it was supposed that the Bible is not sufficiently clear - it is not able to be understood by the common people.

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. In their view, more authoritative words from God are needed (which come through the church) in order to clarify Scripture. All of this goes back to the root idea that the Bible alone is not sufficiently clear.

Thankfully Rome has shifted somewhat on its position since the Reformation and now encourages the private reading of Scripture. But Rome still stubbornly holds to the position that the Scriptures are not clear. To say that the Scriptures are not clear is, at the end of the day, to say that God's Word is unsuccessful. Successful communication is clear communication. But if God did not communicate clearly through his word, then his word is unsuccessful. Since this cannot be, we must accept that the Scriptures are sufficiently clear.

Athanasius377 · Apr 17, 2018

TuxAme said:
Scripture doesn't stand alone, if that's what your question is. When you force Scripture to do so, you have chaos- a hundred, a thousand, and a high estimate places the number at 40,000 different denominations all claiming Scripture to be "sufficiently clear" (whatever that should mean) while all are tugging in radically different directions.

And Satan is laughing all the way to the bank.

Here is the source and a catholic refutation of the number.

We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

Independents: 22,000 denominations
Protestants: 9000 denominations
Marginals: 1600 denominations
Orthodox: 781 denominations
Catholics: 242 denominations
Anglicans: 168 denominations

Unless you want to try and answer which of the 242 catholic denominations you belong to.

EDIT: I did not see that Redleghunter had already posted the link. Sorry for the stereo effect .

Athanasius377 · Apr 17, 2018

Mountainmike said:
If it was sufficiently clear: Then Why do all protestant groups disagree and are poles apart even on the the very essentials?
Take baptism. The method, applicability, necessity, formula and efficacy are all disputed - yet this is the entry point to salvation. Do you really think Jesus would lead most of his followers astray?
The objective reality is it proves scripture is not enough, since all of those variants
believe sola scriptura is true, and they all supplement scripture with tradition, some written such as articles and confessions. Why so if scripture is enough, why then does the westminster confession even exist? And how come the number and content of articles of early anglicanism, blew with the winds of the monarchs beliefs towards and away from calvinism?

Or Take salvation. OSAS, saved but can lose it, not saved till the end, predestined one way or borth. These are all variants taught by protestants
Even "what is faith" protestants cannot agree on , whether it is intellectual assent or formed faith with charity , or faith with charity and hope.

And you disagree because of the falasy that is sola scriptura.
It was simply not true in the early church.
Even simple logic refutes it.
And scripture disagrees since it says "the household of God is the foundation of truth" which is clearly physical or how can you "behave in it"
You cannot even know what scripture is without the authority of the church and tradition.

I once heard a video that put this into perspective.
This is more than a joke - but a very serious statement.

So a protestant speaks on some part of the epistles. And apostle Paul comes to him and says "But that is not what I meant at all"

( which considering you all think it means different things is clearly true of some or most of you)

Shut up says the protestant to Paul - we dont care what you think what you wrote means.. dont you know it is scripture alone? WE decide what it means, not you.

Sola scriptura was a manmade tradition of the reformation.
Luther lamented it in later life saying " it is the greatest scandal" "there are now as many doctrine as heads"
If only he could see how much worse his monster is now.

And you are wrong. The reason we believe in authority and tradition, is because that is what scripture says affirmed in tradition. Jesus breathed on the apostles and sent them to teach. He gave them the power to "Bind and loose" ie pronounce infallibly on doctrine both jointly and peter alone who is also made chief pastor "tend my sheep". Thats why Paul says "Hold true to tradition we taught you" and also "how can they teach if they have not been sent" Jesus did not say "write this" or "read this" and without the church you would not know what is scripture, which were false gospels (of which there were many) from true ones.

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.

thecolorsblend · Apr 17, 2018

Tree of Life said:
I'm afraid you're not really grappling with the doctrine. Sola Scriptura does not teach that other authorities are irrelevant.

I will assume that you deny that Scripture is able, all on its own, to teach a person what they need to know to be saved and to live a life pleasing to God. I will assume you believe that more authoritative words are needed.

These assumptions in mind...

Could you provide an example of a doctrine that is necessary for salvation or good works which is not clearly taught in Scripture?

That’s not directed at me, I realize, but what you’re asking for is a logical impossibility. Any attempt to answer that question can be dismissed by those inclined to do so on the grounds that it isn’t explicit in scripture.

John tower · Apr 17, 2018

Tree of Life said:
The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a complex doctrine which is made of many parts. So in order to defend and prove it we need to establish its basic parts. One important part is the clarity of Scripture.

The Westminster Confession of Faith says of the Bible...

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture of other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (WCF 1.7)

It's a nuanced statement that affirms:

Not every passage of Scripture is equally clear in itself. Some passages are difficult to interpret.

Not every passage of Scripture is equally clear to all people. Adults understand parts of Scripture that children don't. Married people understand parts of Scripture that single people don't. Educated people understand parts of Scripture that uneducated people don't. Poor people understand parts of Scripture that rich people don't. Etc...

Yet the things that are necessary for salvation (things to be known, believed, and obeyed) are so clearly laid out in some place or another that anyone can gain a sufficient understanding of them. This includes clergy and laity, educated and uneducated, men and women, adults and children, etc... Of course the caveat is that people have to put some work into understanding the Bible. This is what is meant by the "due use of ordinary means."

The basic idea is that the Bible is sufficiently clear. The most important things in Scripture - things necessary to salvation - are able to be understood by all based on their own reading and study of Scripture.

This doctrine is called the clarity of Scripture. This doctrine is implied in many places in Scripture. Here are just a few:

Psalm 119:130 - The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.

Proverbs 1:4 - to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 - 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

Acts 17:11 - Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

1 John 2:27 - 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

Other Scriptures could be cited. But in sum we see that the Bible is able to make the simple wise. The unlearned can read it and grow in knowledge of God. Also the common people of Israel were commanded to know God's word and teach it to their children. This implies that God's word is able to be understood. Furthermore, the Jews in Berea were counted noble because they searched the Scriptures for themselves to test the apostles' preaching.

This stands in contradiction to RCC and EO teaching. According to these traditions, the Scriptures are not sufficiently clear. In the Medieval era before the Reformation it was illegal in many places for private Christians to gather together to read the Bible. And the Bible was not translated into the common language because it was supposed that the Bible is not sufficiently clear - it is not able to be understood by the common people.

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. In their view, more authoritative words from God are needed (which come through the church) in order to clarify Scripture. All of this goes back to the root idea that the Bible alone is not sufficiently clear.

Thankfully Rome has shifted somewhat on its position since the Reformation and now encourages the private reading of Scripture. But Rome still stubbornly holds to the position that the Scriptures are not clear. To say that the Scriptures are not clear is, at the end of the day, to say that God's Word is unsuccessful. Successful communication is clear communication. But if God did not communicate clearly through his word, then his word is unsuccessful. Since this cannot be, we must accept that the Scriptures are sufficiently clear.

If you have 1 Cor 2 they are !

dqhall · Apr 17, 2018

Tree of Life said:
The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a complex doctrine which is made of many parts. So in order to defend and prove it we need to establish its basic parts. One important part is the clarity of Scripture.

The Westminster Confession of Faith says of the Bible...

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture of other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (WCF 1.7)

It's a nuanced statement that affirms:

Not every passage of Scripture is equally clear in itself. Some passages are difficult to interpret.

Not every passage of Scripture is equally clear to all people. Adults understand parts of Scripture that children don't. Married people understand parts of Scripture that single people don't. Educated people understand parts of Scripture that uneducated people don't. Poor people understand parts of Scripture that rich people don't. Etc...

Yet the things that are necessary for salvation (things to be known, believed, and obeyed) are so clearly laid out in some place or another that anyone can gain a sufficient understanding of them. This includes clergy and laity, educated and uneducated, men and women, adults and children, etc... Of course the caveat is that people have to put some work into understanding the Bible. This is what is meant by the "due use of ordinary means."

The basic idea is that the Bible is sufficiently clear. The most important things in Scripture - things necessary to salvation - are able to be understood by all based on their own reading and study of Scripture.

This doctrine is called the clarity of Scripture. This doctrine is implied in many places in Scripture. Here are just a few:

Psalm 119:130 - The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.

Proverbs 1:4 - to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 - 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

Acts 17:11 - Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

1 John 2:27 - 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

Other Scriptures could be cited. But in sum we see that the Bible is able to make the simple wise. The unlearned can read it and grow in knowledge of God. Also the common people of Israel were commanded to know God's word and teach it to their children. This implies that God's word is able to be understood. Furthermore, the Jews in Berea were counted noble because they searched the Scriptures for themselves to test the apostles' preaching.

This stands in contradiction to RCC and EO teaching. According to these traditions, the Scriptures are not sufficiently clear. In the Medieval era before the Reformation it was illegal in many places for private Christians to gather together to read the Bible. And the Bible was not translated into the common language because it was supposed that the Bible is not sufficiently clear - it is not able to be understood by the common people.

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. In their view, more authoritative words from God are needed (which come through the church) in order to clarify Scripture. All of this goes back to the root idea that the Bible alone is not sufficiently clear.

Thankfully Rome has shifted somewhat on its position since the Reformation and now encourages the private reading of Scripture. But Rome still stubbornly holds to the position that the Scriptures are not clear. To say that the Scriptures are not clear is, at the end of the day, to say that God's Word is unsuccessful. Successful communication is clear communication. But if God did not communicate clearly through his word, then his word is unsuccessful. Since this cannot be, we must accept that the Scriptures are sufficiently clear.

If scripture was sufficiently clear, God would not have needed to send Jesus to explain a new covenant to his disciples. Whereas the scriptures are imperfect, God does not err.

One can find arguments that slavery was approved by God in the scriptures. Someone else can prove slavery is wrong using the same book.

Merely having a Bible in your hand does not make you equal to God.

chilehed · Apr 17, 2018

Tree of Life said:
This stands in contradiction to RCC and EO teaching. According to these traditions, the Scriptures are not sufficiently clear.

In fact, St. Peter says the same thing: "In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their destruction, just as they do the other scriptures." (2 Pet. 3:16)

Tree of Life said:
In the Medieval era before the Reformation it was illegal in many places for private Christians to gather together to read the Bible.

Nonsense. Total, unadulterated nonsense.

LoveofTruth · Apr 17, 2018

thecolorsblend said:
That’s not directed at me, I realize, but what you’re asking for is a logical impossibility. Any attempt to answer that question can be dismissed by those inclined to do so on the grounds that it isn’t explicit in scripture.

we do need the Spirit of God to give life, and the seed is sown in the hearts of men even before the scriptures were given.

However,

here's a verse to consider

2 Timothy 3:15
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

redleghunter · Apr 17, 2018

Mountainmike said:
If it was sufficiently clear: Then Why do all protestant groups disagree and are poles apart even on the the very essentials?

What are the very essentials? You may want to examine the following:

We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

From the Roman Catholic National Catholic Register (A service of EWTN):

... There are not—repeat with me—there are not 33,000 Protestant denominations. There are not anywhere close to it. It is a myth that has taken hold by force of repetition, and it gets cited and recited by reflex; but it is based on a source that, even Catholics will have to concede, relies on too loose a definition of the word “denomination.”

The source is the two-volume World Christian Encyclopedia (Barrett, Kurian, and Johnson; Oxford University Press). Take note of the passage where the 33,000 figure comes up:

World Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed [sic] of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries (Vol. I, p. 16).

[...]

Thus the immediate problem is that the WCE only classifies 9000 denominations (27% of the whole) as Protestant. To get to 33,000, one must add in the Independents, Marginals, Anglicans, and 232 of the Orthodox.

Among the 23,600 “Independents” and “Marginals” (70% of the whole) are large numbers of groups one would have a hard time calling Protestant. They include Mormons (122 denominations), Jehovah’s Witnesses (229 denominations), Masons (28 denominations), Christadelphians (21 denominations) Unitarians (29 denominations), Christian Science (59 denominations), Theosophists (3 more denominations), British Israelites (8 denominations), Prosperity Gospel groups (27 denominations), Oneness Pentecostals (680 denominations), “Hidden Buddhist Believers in Christ” (9 denominations), wandering bishops (12 denominations), Independent Nestorians (5 denominations), occultists (3 denominations), spiritists (20 denominations), Zionists (159 denominations), even “Arab radio/TV network” (19 denominations), “gay/homosexual tradition” (2 denominations), and schismatic Catholics (435 denominations). It is a strange and eclectic list. (See here and here.)

However strong the temptation some may have to characterize anything not Catholic or Orthodox as “Protestant,” you can’t do that. All that tells Protestant apologists is that you don’t know what Protestantism is, or what its distinctives are—and they would be right. And why would they take anything you say seriously after that? If you don’t know what Protestantism is, who are you to be talking about its errors? Not only are Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians, Prosperity Gospel believers (included among 23,600 Independents and Marginals) not Protestant, they are not even Christian; they adhere to a false Christology. Protestants and Catholics are in agreement about who Christ is; these other groups have other ideas.

And then the WCE somehow comes up with 242 Catholic denominations. That should be a big glaring red flag that it has been a bit—how shall we say?—free and loose with the word “denomination.”

[...]

The WCE defines “denomination” thus:

an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country … whose component congregations and members are called by the same denominational name in different areas, regarding themselves as one autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches, and traditions.

That is a mouthful. It seems to be defining a denomination as any Christian entity that is ecclesially independent, which is fine as far as it goes. But did you notice that the definition limits a denomination’s reach to “within a specific country”? In other words, you cannot have a single denomination existing in the United States and England at the same time. They may both be Presbyterian, but they are two different denominations, even if nothing else divides them. So the WCE comes up with 438 Presbyterian denominations and 647 Methodist and 1017 Baptist.

I think the number is inflated.

Moreover, Independent Baptist congregations, who have a high doctrine of the local church and govern themselves, are each counted as separate denominations, even though they may all believe the same doctrine. There are 8,142 such congregations named by the WCE, whether Baptist or not, whether Protestant or not.

Or is it your point that given doctrinal differences is evidence the Scriptures are not clear? For even when a church has an infallible catechism there are divisions among her faithful on what it actually means and what applies.

40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable"; Sex between unmarried couples: 67% vs. 57%; Baby out of wedlock: 61% vs. 52%; Homosexual relations: 54% vs. 45%; Gambling: 72% vs. 59%
Catholics Similar to Mainstream on Abortion, Stem Cells

In a survey asking whether one approves or rejects or overall sees little consequence (skeptical) to society regarding seven trends on the family (More: unmarried couples raising children; gay and lesbian couples raising children; single women having children without a male partner to help raise them; people living together without getting married; mothers of young children working outside the home; people of different races marrying each other; and more women not ever having children), 42% of all Protestants were “Rejecters” of the modern trend, 35% were Skeptics, and 23% were “Approvers.” Among Catholics, 27% were Rejecters, 34% were Approvers, and 39% were Skeptics. (Among non religious, 10% were Rejecters, 48% were Approvers, and 42% were Skeptics.)
Pew forum, The Public Renders a Split Verdict On Changes in Family Structure, February 16, 2011 The Public Renders a Split Verdict On Changes in Family Structure

In the USA, 73% of Catholics maintain one can be a good Catholic while using contraceptives. 61% believe the Church should not interfere in this: it should be left to one’s own conscience. Even among weekly Mass-goers, only 21% say this is a matter for Church leaders to determine, nearly half (45%) consider it a matter for one’s own conscience.

In Australia only 2% of students accept the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception; 89% indicate it is a personal issue for the couple involved.

http://www.thebodyissacred.org/body-catholics-and-artificial-birth-control/

There's more if you would like to examine. However, I think this is enough to wet the pallet on the fallacy of unity if only on paper.

Tree of Life · Apr 17, 2018

Mountainmike said:
If it was sufficiently clear: Then Why do all protestant groups disagree and are poles apart even on the the very essentials?

I don't think that Protestants disagree on the essentials. Here's an example of a basic confession which unites many protestants - Reforming Catholic Confession

Also, 99% of Protestants accept the Apostles' Creed. What's expressed in that Creed is, in my opinion, the absolute essentials. We are very united on these things. We're divided on other things but I would say that these are non-essential. But that's nothing unique to Protestants. Catholics are also very "divided" within Catholicism.

Take baptism. The method, applicability, necessity, formula and efficacy are all disputed - yet this is the entry point to salvation.

A good example of non-essential things. Baptism is essential. All agree to that. But mode of baptism? Psht. Who cares?

The objective reality is it proves scripture is not enough, since all of those variants
believe sola scriptura is true, and they all supplement scripture with tradition, some written such as articles and confessions. Why so if scripture is enough, why then does the westminster confession even exist? And how come the number and content of articles of early anglicanism, blew with the winds of the monarchs beliefs towards and away from calvinism?

Confessions exist because they are very helpful. They don't add anything to Scripture. Rather, they draw out what is already implicit in Scripture. Confessions help unify the church and clarify doctrine. But confessions are not infallible. And they have no authority to add anything to the Bible.

The teaching of the magisterium, on the other hand, is taken to be infallible. They also add doctrines for acceptance that are not taught in Scripture. The difference between Catholicism and Reformed faith is not that one has confessions and the other does not. The difference is in how we view our confessions.

Or Take salvation. OSAS, saved but can lose it, not saved till the end, predestined one way or borth. These are all variants taught by protestants
Even "what is faith" protestants cannot agree on , whether it is intellectual assent or formed faith with charity , or faith with charity and hope.

Non-essential items. You'll find these disagreements within Catholicism too.

Tree of Life · Apr 17, 2018

thecolorsblend said:
That’s not directed at me, I realize, but what you’re asking for is a logical impossibility. Any attempt to answer that question can be dismissed by those inclined to do so on the grounds that it isn’t explicit in scripture.

It shouldn't be logically impossible if what you say is true.

If the Scriptures are not sufficiently clear then there must be some doctrines which are necessary and not clearly laid out in Scripture. Can you name any?

Tree of Life · Apr 17, 2018

dqhall said:
If scripture was sufficiently clear, God would not have needed to send Jesus to explain a new covenant to his disciples. Whereas the scriptures are imperfect, God does not err.

One can find arguments that slavery was approved by God in the scriptures. Someone else can prove slavery is wrong using the same book.

You seem to be excluding the New Testament from "the Scriptures". Sola Scriptura implies Tota Scriptura. We need all of Scripture - OT and NT - in order to accurately make sense of any of Scripture.

Merely having a Bible in your hand does not make you equal to God.

No one is arguing for this.

Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

He’s a Way of life

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Is playing with his Tonka truck.

Is playing with his Tonka truck.

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

The Called Out

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Christ builds His church from within us

Thank You Jesus!

Hide The Pain

Hide The Pain

Hide The Pain

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency