Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[W2L]

Its enough. For me anyway.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I think it would be enormously incorrect to pretend that all Catholics believe every dogma of the RCC. I grew up in the RCC; I've seen it first hand. Or are we going to pretend Catholics don't disagree on, for example, the subject of birth control?

That isn’t the issue. They are required to submit to the Church’s teachings. Those who don’t are rebelling, which everyone would acknowledge to be true. The fact that some choose to disobey hardly changes what the Church has dogmatically defined.

Meanwhile, Protestants can have entirely different notions of theology, Christology and so forth. That’s a completely different order of disagreement than some Catholic having his own ideas about birth control.

 

[Phil 1:21]

That isn’t the issue. They are required to submit to the Church’s teachings. Those who don’t are rebelling, which everyone would acknowledge to be true. The fact that some choose to disobey hardly changes what the Church has dogmatically defined.

Meanwhile, Protestants can have entirely different notions of theology, Christology and so forth. That’s a completely different order of disagreement than some Catholic having his own ideas about birth control.

And right now on the OBOB subforum there is a Catholic poster denying the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Do "good" atheists go to heaven?

 

[straykat]

And right now on the OBOB subforum there is a Catholic poster denying the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Do "good" atheists go to heaven?

That's pretty much in V2.

And the main thrust of Catholicism's ecumenical efforts. It's gone way beyond simply trying to find friendship in other Christians.

 

[W2L]

And right now on the OBOB subforum there is a Catholic poster denying the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Do "good" atheists go to heaven?

Let me guess, is Mary involved?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Let me guess, is Mary involved?

Not on that thread. But in my search around the internet I found a study that had some interesting findings.

Key findings about American Catholics

 

[straykat]

Why would Mary be involved in that?

I would say that's the one thing Protestants (and all others) would be foolish to abandon. It was our Lord's last wish before his mortal life ended, to give Mary to us as a mother. The last gift he had, from his human/earthly perspective.

No, Catholics believe those things because Vatican II's loosening.. and near apostasy.

Exhibit A (not just atheist outreach):

 

[Phil 1:21]

I would say that's the one thing Protestants (and all others) would be foolish to abandon. It was our Lord's last wish before his mortal life ended, to give Mary to us as a mother. The last gift he had, from his human/earthly perspective.

26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. John 19:26-27

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not John the Apostle.

 

[redleghunter]

As I am not a Protestant, it isn’t my place to demand they agree on something.

You’re so certain that there is no substantial doctrinal disagreement so why not name five doctrines that no Protestant ever or anywhere has disagrees with.

For example, if a church or denomination claims denies the deity of Jesus Christ, Son of God (Colossians 2:9) that alone puts them not only Biblically in error but in error of 6 ecumenical early church councils. These councils (the First Council of Nicaea in 325, the First Council of Constantinople in 381, the Council of Ephesus in 431, the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, the Third Council of Constantinople from 680–681) addressed Christological issues.

It is from my experience and also looking at the History of the church since Pentecost, that most error that is out there emanates from getting the Nature of Jesus Christ, Son of God wrong. From that error many more errors propagate.

Now if you really wanted a division within Protestants it would be between Reformed theology and that of Wesleyan theology. The divide between the teachings of Calvin vs. Arminius. Yet two theologies do not divide the Lord's Table and fellowship divine. Which is best demonstrated by Charles H. Spurgeon when speaking of the character of John Wesley:

You know, brethren, that there is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer, I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But, my dear friends, far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none within her walls but Calvinistic Christians, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him, that while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself, I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one of whom the world was not worthy. I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ into their hearts, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist out of heaven.

- C. H. Spurgeon, The Man With the Measuring Line ​

 

[Athanasius377]

Why would Mary be involved in that?

I would say that's the one thing Protestants (and all others) would be foolish to abandon. It was our Lord's last wish before his mortal life ended, to give Mary to us as a mother. The last gift he had, from his human/earthly perspective.

No, Catholics believe those things because Vatican II's loosening.. and near apostasy.

Exhibit A (not just atheist outreach):

I actually agree with you about Vatican II. I typically ignore liberal catholic because I have no idea what they believe. If I were Catholic I would be deeply concerned by the disunity and straight up apostasy that has occurred in its wake.

 

[Mountainmike]

No true Scotsman. Got it.

Now study what I said instead, since you clearly don't get it.

 

[straykat]

26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. John 19:26-27

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not John the Apostle.

Come on now. You think John was so egoistical that he meant to only write about himself? lol. What about every other statement in the Bible? Was it specifically addressed to only that person, if it was not explicit? What's the point ANY of this is as the Word of God, if it's just for one person out of billions and billions and billions.

No one thought that for thousands of years.. and yet you come and say it isn't so, making the Apostle...frankly... looking like a conceited jerk.


By that reasoning, Jesus' declaration of Peter as the Rock of the Church only applies to him... ironically making you agree with Catholics.

 

[FenderTL5]

Why..

When all they have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[W2L]

Come on now. You think John was so egoistical that he meant to only write about himself? lol. What about every other statement in the Bible? Was it specifically addressed to only that person, if it was not explicit? What's the point ANY of this is as the Word of God, if it's just for one person out of billions and billions and billions.

No one thought that for thousands of years.. and yet you come and say it isn't so, making the Apostle...frankly... looking like a conceited jerk.

Its not egotistical if its true.

 

[RDKirk]

To be clear, you’re saying all Protestants at all times in all places everywhere won’t reject the Apostles Creed or even disagree with anything the creed proclaims?

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.

 

[straykat]

Its not egotistical if its true.

I just ninja edited, but by this reasoning, it makes Jesus' declaration to Peter as the Rock of the Church ONLY applying to Peter.. making one compelled to agree with Catholics. And leading one astray, as the Pope does in that vid... when your faith hangs on one guy.

 

[W2L]

I just ninja edited, but by this reasoning, it makes Jesus' declaration to Peter as the Rock of the Church ONLY applying to Peter.. making one compelled to agree with Catholics. And leading one astray, as the Pope does in that vid... when your faith hangs on one guy.

I dont see what you mean.

 

[Mountainmike]

Whose idea of tradition was acquinas? Are you saying the catholic church?
I don't follow?

Our idea of tradition is such as irenaus, ignatius, justin martyr and so on,
Looking at what those who taught the apostles believed. Then looking at the heresies outed in councils.

Acquinas added some deeper analysis in theology and philosophy, on which some differ such as the molinist vs thomist understanding of predestination. But he was not adding basic tradition when he did. And the church accepts that to differ on those interpretations is not fundamental, so you can choose either.

Catholics stand for what is in the catechism.
So I dont follow you on that either.
If individuals disagree, they are not speaking for catholicism

The core beliefs have been there since the earliest days.
Like..the eucharist of real presence, valid only if performed in succession.
Like intercession of saints and so on.

Indeed the moral teachings have not changed, such as prolife. The catholic church was rescuing babies left to die outside city walls well over 1500 years ago, And did not yield with the populist winds.

You have hit on the key question.
Where is authority to decide on disputes?
It existed in the OT church too - see Jesus speaking of moses seat
What does "Bind and loose" and the "office of keys" actually mean, or the "Pillar of truth" "stay true to tradition"... mean if not church authority?

As much as I'm grateful for Protestant efforts to make the scriptures plain, I think the history of the Reformation is evidence in itself that scripture wasn't sufficient. All kinds of people popped out of the woodwork preaching Sola Scriptura, but ended up butting heads. I think the saddest episode is perhaps Lutherans and Anabaptists getting to the brink of actual warfare. But outside of dramatic things like that, the history of Protestantism shows just how many denominations have been made, and how many of them say "Sola Scriptura". How is scripture sufficient if this is the outcome? You tell me if this is synonymous with "sufficient".

But I'm not a Catholic either. Their idea of tradition was Aquinas. They may drop patristic names, but it's really all about Aquinas. This is where the worldview is truly crystallized. And then they dropped that somewhat in V2 anyways, so I don't even know what they stand for anymore. It's neither scripture OR tradition. And any honest Catholic would admit it. There's nothing traditional or even Christian about watching your Pope and bishops worship with Voodoo or Hindu adherents or teaching atheistic historical-criticism studies of the scriptures. It isn't just Francis. It started well before this. And it's hardly what I'd consider "sufficient" Christianity either.

 

[RDKirk]

βαπτίζω baptízō, bap-tid'-zo; from a derivative of G911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:—Baptist, baptize, wash.

I have learned that the way translators of koine Greek learned that baptize meant "fully wet" was from an ancient recipe for pickles. The recipe described both blanching the cucumbers (quick dip) in boiling water as a first step and then steeping (long immersion) in salt water as a subsequent step. The term used for steeping was baptizo.

 

[straykat]

I dont see what you mean.

If one statement by Jesus on the cross ONLY applies to John, then it also means one statement by Jesus when he declares Peter the Rock must also apply... making you a fellow to what the Papacy has been arguing all along. That it only applied to Peter (and whoever had the laying on of hands through the various bishops of Rome).

You can't have it both ways.