Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[Phil 1:21]

Its not egotistical if its true.

Agreed. It says what it says.

 

[straykat]

Agreed. It says what it says.

It doesn't say a whole lot to you or me then. Just the bare minimum. Might as well be some peasant from the Middle Ages who can't even read the scriptures. What difference would it make?

 

[straykat]

The funniest thing about this is applying so much literalism to the most symbolic gospel at all. It's like those people who left Jesus because he said they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

John obviously meant more. He was never idle with words.

 

[Phil 1:21]

It doesn't say a whole lot to you or me then. Just the bare minimum. Might as well be some peasant from the Middle Ages who can't even read the scriptures. What difference would it make?

It says that Jesus gave Mary to John who took her into his house as his mother. Pretty straight forward stuff really.

 

[W2L]

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

You can't have it both ways.

Not that i agree with catholicism in the least, but i dont agree.

 

[straykat]

It says that Jesus gave Mary to John who took her into his house as his mother. Pretty straight forward stuff really.

Yes, the Gospel of John. Straightforward Stuff.

I don't have a word for this. Reminds me of my experiences with the Church of Christ denomination. So literal that they don't even have kitchens or Sunday School... because it wasn't explicitly stated in scripture.

 

[straykat]

Not that i agree with catholicism in the least, but i dont agree.

I already gathered you don't agree. Saying it again doesn't really resolve anything. I'm talking about the line of reasoning. This picking and choosing of what can applied to one statement, and then saying it doesn't apply elsewhere for arbitrary reasons: it's not consistent.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

What about the statements Jesus made to the Pharisees? Or the thief on the cross? Or to Nathaniel? Are we to generalize everything He said to each person across all of us? That's what you're asserting.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Observe all the heated debates between people on GT and elsewhere.

Yeah. I can see the smoke coming up from it all the way from my house ehehe
I don't post on it much anymore.......

Matt 23:33 `Serpents! produce of vipers!
How ye may be fleeing from the judging of the geennhV <1067>?

2 Corin 6:17 wherefore come-forth out of midst of them! and be being separated! is saying Lord............

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of the tormenting of them is ascending into Ages to-Ages.......

 

[redleghunter]

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?

Those movements of the Reformation from the Roman Catholic Church did not break with Rome over any of the 12 articles. Whether Calvinist, Lutheran, Arminian, Anglican (although the Anglican view is Rome left it) etc. those movements were not in protest over any of the 12 articles of the Apostles Creed. In fact none were in opposition to the Nicene Creed and all of them confirmed the first 6 ecumenical councils.

I guess you can call that historic Protestantism. 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 but they truly are not when you consider the Protestant Reformation was focused on reforming the Catholic church. Therefore, the snake charming, Oneness, Shakers and quite a many others may be listed as Protestant but they don't hold to the articles of the Apostles Creed, nor are Creedal as Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Fundamentalists, Evangelicals etc.

Here at CF the non-creedal churches cannot 'fly the colors' of Christian on their signature or profile and must identify either specifically what they are or enter "non-denominational." However, we should be aware that some identify as non-denominational here but their independent church/assembly may hold to the creeds.

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:

Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

 

[straykat]

What about the statements Jesus made to the Pharisees? Or the thief on the cross? Or to Nathaniel? Are we to generalize everything He said to each person across all of us? That's what you're asserting.

If we were guilty of things the Pharisees did, sure it would apply very much! Same with the thief on the cross: God forbid that he didn't have mercy on us, as he did on that man.

And thus, it applies to Peter and John as well: It's Peter's testament of Faith that makes him the cornerstone. Obviously, all disciples of Christ come to this understanding through the Holy Spirit.. to say it's only Peter and his successors who get revealed the truths of Spirit or Christ, and thus are the mediums and vicars of Christ, is disgusting. Same with John, if we were to put ourselves in a simple disciple's position.

I would hate to look at the scriptures in a way that didn't speak to me, the way you guys are proposing. Kill me now, if that's the case. I literally want NOTHING to do with life, if it was this bleak and I was cut off from the Word of God.

Thankfully, you're wrong, and we all have life and the Word in abundance.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

(I may consider myself HONORARY SOLA SCRIPTURA)

We should form a club here on CF for those of us who are. Just do a google search on "sola scriptura christianforums". Ton of threads on that CF .

sola scriptura christian forums site:www.christianforums.com - Google Search

 

[redleghunter]

To be clear, I would say that the vast majority of Protestants would accept the Apostles' Creed as a baseline standard of orthodoxy. There may be some so called Protestant individuals who reject articles of the creed. I have in mind some liberal theologians in the Protestant tradition who are atheists! Think of Bishop Spong! But the vast majority of Protestants would anathematize these people. Those who depart from the Apostles' Creed are anathematized by Protestants. But for those within the bounds of the creed, Protestants may disagree with each other but we don't anathematize each other.

LOL yeah forgot Bishop Spong but don't sell yourself short. Spong denies his own church's doctrine and there are no paucity of examples we could present of such in the Roman tradition as well. Bishops advocating chemical contraception, abortion, giving communion to openly unrepentant church members (homosexuals, politicians advocating abortion etc.)

Not to be uneven here, the Presbyterians have the PCUSA to contend with too. As in entire assemblies walking away from Biblical and historic (creedal) Christianity. I know you could list them but such heresies as Open theism, ordaining homosexuals etc.

Everyone has their heretics sitting in the pew next to them. The difference is when they open their pie hole and start making claims what does said church do for admonishment and discipline. Seems Spong was so well established no one in his own church will challenge him or don't care to do so.

 

[FenderTL5]

I would say that 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.

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

 

[straykat]

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.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

From what I know, neither does Catholicism. I believe they both have "closed communion", unless it has changed.
Plenty of threads on that topic also:

non catholics and eastern orthodox cannot take communion in catholic church christianforums site:www.christianforums.com - Google Search

Orthodox reasons for closed communion
Orthodox reasons for closed communion

 

[Tree of Life]

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

Good question. The purpose of preaching and teaching is to apply what the Scriptures teach to all areas of life. Another way to put it is to say that preaching and teaching demonstrates what is clearly taught in Scripture.

So teaching is a gift that is very useful and even needful for the church.

But teachers do not add anything to Scripture. In teaching, they do not go beyond what the Scriptures teach. In RCC traditions teachers actually authoritatively add words to Scripture and teach more than what Scripture teaches. This is exactly where they violate Sola Scriptura.

 

[W2L]

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

We have preaching and teaching, i,e. we have the scriptures

 

[thecolorsblend]

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?

There are a lot of unknowns in that discussion. To address it here risks derailing the discussion. Suffice it to say, there are circumstances where that member could be right.

I do find it a bit puzzling that one comment is seemingly the only problem you had with that discussion though.

 

[redleghunter]

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?

The argument @thecolorsblend I believe is making (please let me know) is that the catechism is clear, it is authoritative and every Roman Catholic must submit to it to be Catholic. If one disagrees with any of the infallible teachings, they are not Catholic.

So on paper he is 100% correct. Yet both Catholics and Protestants know our actions show what we truly believe, which includes what we say. So if there are proclaimed Roman Catholics promoting chemical, barrier, et al other artificial means of contraception then they are not Catholic. If there are pro abortion rights on demand Catholics then they are not truly Catholic. One can do that for every chapter and article of the CCC to include divorce.

On two other sites, Roman Catholics call this self-excommunication when one rejects an article of faith.

I guess our Roman Catholic friends here want Protestants to take responsibility for those out of the faith, but they won't. 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. Anything not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (the other One True Church) is "Protestant." Which of course from the article I cite (Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?) not even Roman Catholics believe to be accurate.

Yet, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, the Kennedy family, bishops giving communion to unrepentant homosexuals and other visible unrepentant sinners, theologians promoting Liberal theology to include Liberation Theology, the practice of Santeria all get a 'pass.'