Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[redleghunter]

You gave me sources but no clear idea of which of the sources constitute Tradition and what does not. How does a Roman Catholic living in the 21st century know what is tradition and what is not from these sources?

This is a good point. I think most Catholics can come up with a list of what they consider Sacred Tradition but not be able to tell you with 100% confidence what is binding. The best bet is to look at the canons of Trent as that is defining council for Roman Catholicism.

For some reason many Catholics I encountered while in University looked at Vatican II in a skeptical light. And that was a Catholic university.

 

[redleghunter]

And you kind of prove my point. I'm not talking about, "Oh, yeah, we all work together for the common good". I'm talking about doctrinal unity.

Yes, you don't do the Lord's work side by side with those in error. You find two main doctrines in Protestant/Evangelical churches which were from the Reformation. Either Calvinist or Arminian. Both have worked side by side for centuries regardless of doctrinal differences we do not consider essential.

We may fight like cats and dogs here on doctrinal issues like the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do, but all serve the same sovereign God and preach the same Good News of Christ crucified, died, Risen and ascended into Heaven.

Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians all are unified on the Apostles Creed and fist 6 ecumenical councils addressing the Nature of Christ.

 

[straykat]

What exactly is your position in the matter?

You have opined on others comments but have not established your own.

I find a lot to agree with with the Orthodox.. but they're almost absent in my area. So I can't say I accept any ecclesiastical authority. Nor am I going to ignore all of the great things about other churches. I think the Orthodox have been poor in their outreach (somewhat not their fault, due to regional and political differences). I mean, Protestants and Catholics are great missionaries, along with building schools and hospitals galore. I think Christ is working everywhere.. but if you just ask me about basic tenets, then Orthodoxy.

 

[redleghunter]

Mmm, good idea, but what does that actually look like? You know? Like, what is the Church supposed to do there exactly? Presumably it's something that isn't Anathema Maranatha.

Hm, interesting. But again, exactly what should the Church do? Exactly how should the Church do it? What exactly should the Church say? Again, I assume Anathema Maranatha isn't it. So what should be done then?

The unrepentant church member is denied fellowship. Restore such a one once they do repent. That's what it looks like.

Actually smaller congregations can and do this as their pastors and elders actually know the congregants.

One of our missionaries told us a story of a planted church in Africa. The British missionary who planted the church showed up 15 mins late due to traffic and bad roads. When he arrived he saw a man sitting outside and thought it was an usher or guard of some type. After services he saw the man still waiting outside. He asked if he belonged to the church and the man told him he was but because of his sin the pastor denied him to attend the church and communion. When asked why he was there, he said he wanted to listen to the music and to wait for the pastor and elders to repent and be brought back in.

When the missionary asked the pastor what happened he told him the man sinned publicly there were friends who went to him to confront him, but he denied it. Then we sent three witnesses who saw his sin but he still was recalcitrant. Then the elders confronted him and the same. So we put him out. Now he wants to come and repent and be restored.

The missionaries jaw dropped and the pastor asked why was he surprised as that is what was taught by Jesus and Paul in the Bible you gave us.

Ah the simplicity of obedience and love.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The unrepentant church member is denied fellowship. Restore such a one once they do repent. That's what it looks like.

Actually smaller congregations can and do this as their pastors and elders actually know the congregants.

One of our missionaries told us a story of a planted church in Africa. The British missionary who planted the church showed up 15 mins late due to traffic and bad roads. When he arrived he saw a man sitting outside and thought it was an usher or guard of some type. After services he saw the man still waiting outside. He asked if he belonged to the church and the man told him he was but because of his sin the pastor denied him to attend the church and communion. When asked why he was there, he said he wanted to listen to the music and to wait for the pastor and elders to repent and be brought back in.

When the missionary asked the pastor what happened he told him the man sinned publicly there were friends who went to him to confront him, but he denied it. Then we sent three witnesses who saw his sin but he still was recalcitrant. Then the elders confronted him and the same. So we put him out. Now he wants to come and repent and be restored.

The missionaries jaw dropped and the pastor asked why was he surprised as that is what was taught by Jesus and Paul in the Bible you gave us.

Ah the simplicity of obedience and love.

Right but what's the exact formula of words they should use to do the job?

Also, what's to stop the penitent (for lack of a better word) from joining up at some other ecclesial community?

 

[Cis.jd]

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.
snip
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.

First, not everyone has good reading comprehension and interpretation.. that is why John Smith and the guy who founded the Iglesia Ni Christo made their cults because they read the bible and thought it denied Jesus as God.

Rome never said the scriptures are not clear it's just not sufficient. The Church has always been before the book.. in fact, the early christians (before the canonization of the Bible) did not go by scripture alone but what was passed from Jesus to his apostles and to their apostles. Oral tradition!
God did not just speak through writings but also through oral tradition; Jesus did not right or come here to be a writer; he did not tell Peter that upon this rock i will write a book..

The Bible (the NT) came hundreds of years after this, so you can see historically that scripture alone was never originally christian. Matt. 18:15-17 even shows that the church is the final court of appeal.

Additionally, how can you defend sola scriptura now? Look at what it did. Just after 30-50 years of the birth of Protestantism, more than 300 different protestant doctrines came into existence now at this age we about 5,000+ -- all reforming from it's predecessors; all claiming that their protestant parents are not following scripture. You, a protestant claiming that scriptures have to be clear?

 

[redleghunter]

Right but what's the exact formula of words they should use to do the job?

Words? They are informed they are no longer in fellowship with the church.

Also, what's to stop the penitent (for lack of a better word) from joining up at some other ecclesial community?

Nothing. It's not like even the Dominican order can "take care of" your heretics.

I believe most of your waywards end up in the Episcopal church.

 

[redleghunter]

The Bible (the NT) came hundreds of years after this, so you can see historically that scripture alone was never originally christian

Please explain. When was the church without the NT writings?

 

[straykat]

I believe most of your waywards end up in the Episcopal church.

Hah.. that's probably true. I noticed divorced Catholics often get remarried in these churches. Maybe that's the case for other things too.

 

[straykat]

Please explain. When was the church without the NT writings?

I think they meant "bible" (books.. plural) as a whole. Which is true. Obviously singular writings circulated, but no one made a concerted effort for a canon, until, funnily... Marcion. A heretic. Then the Church felt compelled to get to business (usually the case for many big moves in the church, strangely. Even the Council in Jerusalem in Acts was sparked by a Judaizing heresy).

 

[chilehed]

That seems to be one side of the story.

That is the true story. The documents prove it.

I believe the original word was "discouraged from."

And that's a lie as well. The Catholic Church has never discouraged or forbidden the study of the Bible.

What is clear from the sources is that the early church encouraged private study and meditation.

And that has never changed, fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[straykat]

Before printing, people often had to go to churches anyways to read scriptures (the few studious enough to have such a luxury)... if they were lucky enough to be literate in the first place. This is all unfortunate circumstance more than outright suppression.

 

[redleghunter]

That is the true story. The documents prove it.

I tried to be reasonable enough. What I quoted from Catholic sources say different.

And that's a lie as well. The Catholic Church has never discouraged or forbidden the study of the Bible.

Only if you ignore what was provided.

And that has never changed, fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding.

Never is unsupportable from the evidence I supplied...from Catholic scholarship.

Listen, calling it lies is calling your own scholars and Catholic Encyclopedia liars. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that as I think they handled the information honestly.

To say "they only did that to stop heretics" is akin to seizing guns from law abiding citizens because of a few murderers who mishandled guns.

 

[straykat]

The problem in the Church's eyes with the likes of Wycliffe and others is that they were iconoclastic in general (by iconoclastic I don't mean just dismissive of images.. but they were dismissive of many central tenets too. Like real presence of Christ in the Eucharist). The fact that the Church eventually made translations across Europe during the Reformation shows that that in itself wasn't the thing they were against.

Bible translations in the Middle Ages - Wikipedia

But we're also just speaking of Western Europe. It was even more of a non-issue elsewhere. Bible translation coincided with missionary efforts by the Orthodox. Where do you think the word "Cyrillic" comes from? From St. Cyril, who made an alphabet and translations of scriptures, as he preached to the Slavs. Circa 900s AD... long before any Reformation.

 

[Cis.jd]

Please explain. When was the church without the NT writings?

You think the NT (Matt-Rev or even just Matt-John) was already written and compiled during the time of acts? You are aware of the writings from the men of Nero such as Celsus and Lucian of Samasota, writing about the beliefs, creeds, and prayers the christians they had in prison made to Jesus.. this was all LONG before the 300 ad, when the Bible was canonized.

 

[Cis.jd]

I tried to be reasonable enough. What I quoted from Catholic sources say different.


Only if you ignore what was provided.

Ya those sources are off. We are encouraged to read the scriptures, even during mass we have "reading according to...."

I have a question for you. Do you believe Matt-Rev is the true closed NT canon -do you believe these are the real inspired word and not the rest that was rejected such as Revelation of Peter. If so, why?

 

[redleghunter]

You think the NT (Matt-Rev or even just Matt-John) was already written and compiled during the time of acts? You are aware of the writings from the men of Nero such as Celsus and Lucian of Samasota, writing about the beliefs, creeds, and prayers the christians they had in prison made to Jesus.. this was all LONG before the 300 ad, when the Bible was canonized.

They were written for sure in the time of the apostles Irenaeus confirms this.

Polycarp had a keen understanding of the epistles of Paul as many of the early early fathers did.

One only has to read Against Heresies by Irenaeus to see even in the late 2nd century he had compiled the entirety of what later was called the NT.

 

[redleghunter]

Ya those sources are off. We are encouraged to read the scriptures, even during mass we have "reading according to...."

They were your own Roman Catholic sources to include Catholic Encyclopedia. There's that, so much for infallibility.

Here they are again:

 

[redleghunter]

I have a question for you. Do you believe Matt-Rev is the true closed NT canon -do you believe these are the real inspired word and not the rest that was rejected such as Revelation of Peter. If so, why?

The 27 books were of apostolic origin from the 1st century. The Revelation of Peter is dated after the apostolic era.

 

[klutedavid]

I think they meant "bible" (books.. plural) as a whole. Which is true. Obviously singular writings circulated, but no one made a concerted effort for a canon, until, funnily... Marcion. A heretic. Then the Church felt compelled to get to business (usually the case for many big moves in the church, strangely. Even the Council in Jerusalem in Acts was sparked by a Judaizing heresy).

Marcion is an interesting fellow, this heretic wrote the earliest recorded list of N.T letters. Please do not assume that a canon of N.T letters was only available once Marcion mentioned them in 144 AD. It is obvious that these N.T letters were widely circulated before Marcion even mentioned the list of letters.

After all, Paul's letters were no doubt being copied and circulated. Paul even mentions passing his letters onto other churches.

There can be no doubt whatsoever, that Luke's Gospel and Paul's letters were well circulated, even at the end of the first century.