Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[BNR32FAN]

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

That term is most often used by Roman Catholics who fail to understand that even the Catholic Church is divided and doesn’t agree on doctrine or tradition. Hence the Orthodox, Oriental, and Roman Catholic Churches. So Protestants aren’t the only ones who can’t agree on doctrine and the Catholic Churches are in the same boat as every other denomination out there.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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?

Not only that but purgatory, the filioque, priest celibacy, the papacy, Mary as mediatrix, and many more.

 

[FenderTL5]

The purpose of preaching and teaching is to apply what the Scriptures teach to all areas of life..
So teaching is a gift that is very useful and even needful for the church.
..teachers do not add anything to Scripture. In teaching, they do not go beyond what the Scriptures teach.

you 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.

That would make the purpose of your preaching and teaching, as described above, superfluous and unnecessary.

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

preaching/teaching "that is" scriptures?

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

I disagree because the RCC changed the original doctrines and teachings of the church and the Orthodox Church didn’t. Obviously everyone does not agree that we are required to submit to the churches teachings otherwise there would’ve never been a schism in 1054AD.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

And after that it was no longer a cucumber it became a new creation...A pickle!! Lol

 

[W2L]

preaching/teaching "that is" scriptures?

I meant that the scriptures themselves teach us. They are the teaching of the Lord and His apostles. So when we study them we are being taught by the Lord and His apostles, themselves

 

[BNR32FAN]

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?

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?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I meant that the scriptures themselves teach us. They are the teaching of the Lord and His apostles. So when we study them we are being taught by the Lord and His apostles, themselves

Absolutely each person must search the scriptures for themselves in order to make an educated decision about which church to attend. How else can someone make a decision on the right church if they are ignorant to the teachings of the scriptures? Surely they can’t just take the church’s word for it because all churches claim they are correct and others are wrong.

 

[FenderTL5]

I meant that the scriptures themselves teach us. They are the teaching of the Lord and His apostles. So when we study them we are being taught by the Lord and His apostles, themselves

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..."

 

[Halbhh]

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?

That's a really great question imo, and I think the answer is that He decides what is baptism, and it is according to His words (simply baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit -- and that's it -- no matter mere technique or situation or thoughts of others), meaning that additional distinctions then are all beside the point, and cannot block Him. In other words the anabaptists and the Lutherans -- whatever they think matters so much less than the central intent of the spirit, which they follow no matter their/our mere intellectual mere human mere understanding, which is of no ultimate controlling power or completion, as Pauls points to in 1 Cor 13, for instance.

All here and now is always "in part" --

8 "Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

 

[redleghunter]

Catholics accept the need for tradition and authority to understand scripture, indeed to decide what scripture is, which was the product of church authority.

Joe Biden didn't get that memo.

That doctine is handed in a catechism as document of tradition and authority.
And far from "disagreeing" on it, you are not a catholic if you do not accept the catechism.
When some say they disagree, they are not catholic when they say that.

Nancy Pelosi totally rejects this yet she gets communion from her priest and bishop.

If we hold the above to be true, then 70% of the people who sit in church with you on Sunday are not "Catholic."

 

[redleghunter]

This assumes a certain goal of sufficiency. Are the Scriptures alone sufficient to end all disagreements, put away all division among Christians, end all factionalism, destroy denominationalism, and unite all churches under one visible entity? No. This is not what Sola Scriptura claims that the Scriptures are sufficient to do.

Neither are the Scriptures sufficient to usher in a New Heavens and a New Earth.

But the Scriptures are sufficient to save people and to teach them the will of God. Denominationalism is inevitable. A necessary evil that is a part of living in a fallen world. It existed even within the New Testament era. Just look at 1 Corinthians 1.

Not to mention 5 of 7 churches of varying error in Revelation 2-3.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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..."

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.

 

[redleghunter]

Meanwhile, Protestants can have entirely different notions of theology, Christology and so forth.

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.

 

[redleghunter]

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?

Must not be an article of faith then. Not to mention there are what, 4, Catholic faith group forums here. Why not just one?

 

[Phil 1:21]

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.

I'm not allowed to debate there.

 

[redleghunter]

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

Given those numbers that puts roughly 70% of Catholics not onboard with their own catechism.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Given those numbers that puts roughly 70% of Catholics not onboard with their own catechism.

Yeah, when I was growing up in the RCC is wasn't uncommon at all for someone to say they didn't believe this or didn't believe that. To be honest, it was probably more the norm than the exception.

 

[Anto9us]

beep beep beep indeed

redleghunter and I agree on Christology - to the best of my knowledge - in all points

we may disagree on Soteriology, but there are
essentials and non-essentials
i think everyone can see this


Luk 16:27
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

Luk 16:28
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Luk 16:29
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Luk 16:30
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

Luk 16:31
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Does this speak of THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE?

 

[redleghunter]

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.

So we have to be boiled?

I always erred on the side of full immersion as Baptism is supposed to demonstrate us dying with Christ and rising with Him. Thus the underwater, hold your breath and come up refreshed and taking in a breath of fresh air.

I mean even the Eastern Orthodox 'dunk' the baby not once but three times.