Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[Jonathan Mathews]

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. But there's more.. Jesus also built a church.. with apostles who laid on hands (ordination), who were given the power to bind and loose.. and it was these very guys who gave us the scriptures we quote. But they were not mere words. They were also living people.. not abstract ideas but real men who left something more than letters and gospels. They left the church Jesus gave them.

I'm in search of it, in addition to the scriptures. For the scriptures testify of it.

You and I share the same heart-ache. Every church I go too I LONG/CRAVE/ACHE for them to have the things they are lacking spiritually....Armor, Fruit, Gifts, Signs and Wonders,the Powers of the Age to Come, Visions and Dreams and Miracles, Faith....That Church is REAL, it still exists, and it is sprinkled all throughout the churches. I hope you get what I mean... I too am thirsty for more of the outpouring of the Spirit of God...but why? For whose sake? My own edification or for the sake of those who seem to lack that kind of faith? Why do we want to experience the acts of God? So we can be amazed, or so that people can be saved? Because we're bored in God's work or because we love lost people? Is it coming from a hot, burning, compassionate, love in our hearts for the people at the churches where these things are not happening?

If you found that MATURE church, who would help the IMMATURE one become MATURE?

Therefore my brother, I encourage you to pursue Love of God, Love of others where you are, and the spiritual gifts, especially prophesy. I also advise you ask God to put you into the right body of believers. They need you and you need them and we need you and you need us.

I'll pray for you now.
Peace in Christ Brother!

 

[Mountainmike]

it all comes down to
infallible texts
infallible guide

we got the Word
we got the Ghost !

And you all disagree with each other what it means.

So it cannot be truth, since truth is one, and so God's word is one, so neither is it God's word, just words.

Unless you use the one true meaning from authority and tradition.

I repeat a somewhat amusing story that proves a point.

" so the Protestant says, ' so what paul is telling us in this verse is this.' ..'" giving his interpretation,

Then Paul appears and says " but that's not what I meant"

And the Protestant says " shut up - your opinion is irrelevant- , don't you realise we are sola scriptura?"


Many a true word spoken in jest.

 

[Mountainmike]

What can we learn from tradition?

What scripture means.

 

[W2L]

What scripture means.

You mean a interpretation of what scripture means.

 

[straykat]

You mean a interpretation of what scripture means.

The very scripture that this very tradition gave to you, funnily. The same reasoning that deduced what fit or what didn't is what guided the Church to hand these scriptures down and teach with them.

Yet people would deny it's authority in one area.. but use the scriptures anyhow.

It's all very circular reasoning.

 

[W2L]

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..."

Thats exactly what i said, you just failed to understand it. My apologies for that, i suppose i could have worded it better.

 

[Athanasius377]

The issue is variants of doctrine.

So no dodge.

And.. as I point out, 1 protestabt denomination can represent many doctrines, where 200 Catholic ones have the same doctrine. Non denoms are mix and match and there are millions of non denom Christians, all pope over a denomination of 1

So your post is a straw man. The 30000 and 200 are not comparable. Apples and oranges.

Surprisingly the quotation came from Luther!
I once spent a depressingly long time reading his writings!
His later letters show regret.

Another dodge. Why is this so hard? Where can I find Tradition and where did you get the Luther quote from? Cite the source please. I know its not as easy as copy and pasting a word document but really want to know. The Jews have the Mishnah with their tradition and even have a commentary in the Talmud. So where can I find this Tradition that we need to interpret scripture?

 

[W2L]

The very scripture that this very tradition gave to you, funnily. The same reasoning that deduced what fit or what didn't is what guided the Church to hand these scriptures down and teach with them.

Yet people would deny it's authority in one area.. but use the scriptures anyhow.

It's all very circular reasoning.

The scribes gave us the OT but i wouldn't follow them.

 

[Mountainmike]

You mean a interpretation of what scripture means.

No. what the authors like John the apostle taught it meant, we see in his disciples writings, I would rather know what he meant by John 6

You don't seem to get it. This story makes it clear..


" so the Protestant says, ' so what. Paul is telling us in this verse is this.' ..'" giving his interpretation, ( one of several Protestant versions)

Then Paul appears and says " but that's not what I meant"

And the Protestant says " shut up - your opinion is irrelevant- , don't you realise we are sola scriptura now!"


Many a true word spoken in jest.

 

[W2L]

No. what the authors like John the apostle taught it meant, we see in his disciples writings, I would rather know what he meant by John 6

You don't seem to get it. This story makes it clear..


" so the Protestant says, ' so what. Paul is telling us in this verse is this.' ..'" giving his interpretation, ( one of several Protestant versions)

Then Paul appears and says " but that's not what I meant"

And the Protestant says " shut up - your opinion is irrelevant- , don't you realise we are sola scriptura now!"


Many a true word spoken in jest.

Ok then.

 

[Mountainmike]

The scribes gave us the OT but i wouldn't follow them.

You should because, Let me point out about authority,,, even the OT church had authority.

Jesus said " listen to the Pharisees when they teach from Moses seat"... just don't do what they do.

Replaced in new covenant by the keys of Peter and the power to bind and loose " ex cathedra"

 

[straykat]

The scribes gave us the OT but i wouldn't follow them.

The scribes gave you the Masoretic canon. Only a minority of Christians use it. The canon of the OT as a whole existed well before any scribes. There was a lot more to the "Writings" bit. Everyone agreed on the Torah and Prophets, but the Writings were an evolving tradition. Even the NT and Qumran quote or use things like the book of Enoch or apocryphal books.

 

[W2L]

The scribes gave you the Masoretic canon. Only a minority of Christians use it. The canon of the OT as a whole existed well before any scribes. There was a lot more to the "Writings" bit. Everyone agreed on the Torah and Prophets, but the Writings were an evolving tradition. Even the NT and Qumran quote or use things like the book of Enoch or apocryphal books.

You missed my point.

 

[W2L]

You should because, Let me point out about authority,,, even the OT church had authority.

Jesus said " listen to the Pharisees when they teach from Moses seat"... just don't do what they do.

Replaced in new covenant by the keys of Peter and the power to bind and loose " ex cathedra"

Yes but Jesus rebuked the pharisees and scribes for adding their traditions and making Gods word no effect. Are you saying i should follow vain traditions of pharisees?

 

[chilehed]

Yes I've already alluded to this. The Bible itself says that some things are hard to understand. But the essential things are clear.

Sacred Scripture says that many things are unclear, and it doesn't say that the essential things are not among them - that's a total fabrication.

It sounds crazy but it's not. You should look into the work of John Wycliffe and the Lollards.

So because a heretic made a false translation and the faithful were forbidden to read it, you think that means that no one was allowed to read a legitimate translation at all? That's total and complete nonsense, it's quite simply made up rubbish.

 

[Mountainmike]

Another dodge. Why is this so hard? Where can I find Tradition and where did you get the Luther quote from? Cite the source please. I know its not as easy as copy and pasting a word document but really want to know. The Jews have the Mishnah with their tradition and even have a commentary in the Talmud. So where can I find this Tradition that we need to interpret scripture?

What dodge? The only reason numbers of denominations are ever quoted IS about doctrinal schism.
So much easier to look at doctrinal variation.

Tradition - study early fathers - disciples of apostles, and succession. The life of Anthony by your namesake anasthasius and the councils he attended is a good snapshot of tradition across constantines reign.

Luther's quotes? I would have to look them up again, they are not that obscure, you find them,

 

[straykat]

You missed my point.

I didn't. I knew where you were going. I just wanted to remove the scribes out of the picture. lol. They're not authorities on it. The Torah and Prophets existed well before them, as a stable tradition (even Jesus refers to the scriptures this way). But the writings seemed to be more in flux.

Anyhow, lets get to the New Testament. I wonder what you even know or don't know that this tradition teaches. Or what actually constitutes tradition? For the Orthodox, it's the Councils and creeds that hold weight. Other things are left for friendly debate (unlike the Catholics, who like to catechize and put Magisterial or Papal authority behind things).

And besides that, most Protestants hold to these traditions anyways.. without even questioning them. Even the weird ones, like the filioque and Augustinianism. It's like the early Church begins and ends with Augustine in their minds. The Reformers built on and quoted him the most. I'd go so far as to say that Protestants are just Augustinian Catholics... as much as they might eschew the label. Calvinists especially.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yes but Jesus rebuked the pharisees and scribes for adding their traditions and making Gods word no effect. Are you saying i should follow vain traditions of pharisees?

Which is true. Jesus disliked the way they had turned practice of religion into works of law. But he still held their teaching was right, from Moses seat, which was why I referred it.

But note... the tradition to which paul refers " stay true" is wholly different.

The reference to Pharisees tradition i.e. Works of law is prior to Pentecost which was when Jesus started his new covenant church tradition, ( Paul's mention of tradition ) sending them to teach all nations. And that is why scripture says " how can they teach if they are not sent" reinforcing appointed succession, and handing down by tradition.

 

[BNR32FAN]

With as much respect as I can muster under the circumstances, I really have no interest in discussing the in's and out's of my Church's relationship and history with the Orthodox Church with a "non-denominationalist".

My Church does not permit disagreement on the defined dogmas. Protestantism has no defined dogmas and no method of correcting someone who has gone astray. My Church's teachings are known and Catholics who intentionally reject the Church's teachings know (or should know) the risk they're taking.

So unless we bring back the Inquisition (which I would have only limited objection to, incidentally), I'm not really sure what more my Church can do to bring those types back into line.

Please forgive me brother it is not my attention to attack the Roman church. I just wanted to make the point that if someone is ignorant to the teachings of the Bible it would be impossible for them to make an educated decision on which church is apostolic in doctrine and tradition.

 

[RDKirk]

So we have to be boiled?

I thought it was interesting that such a word that means so much in many Christian circles found its "Rosetta stone" in a pickle recipe.

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.[/QUOTE]

I was originally sprinkled as a child, and I considered that sufficient. Many years later, the Holy Spirit directed us (specifically: "Tell them tomorrow that you want to join"--and the next day, one of the pastors paid us an impromptu visit).

The problem was this congregation believed in immersion. They hadn't pressed me about how I'd been baptized, but I knew what they considered necessary.

So I prayed about it. The Holy Spirit told me: "That's the congregation I told you to be joined with, and that's what they do."

I didn't get the impression the Holy Spirit thought it was very significant, but that He understood they thought it was very significant. I consider the matter somewhat like Timothy's circumcision.