Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[Mountainmike]

Luther never said what you quoted or alluded to.

See how that works.

You made the claim it is your burden to present the evidence.

You either care about truth or you don't.
If you care you will look it up and find it.
Some of Luther's later writings are fascinating.

 

[Athanasius377]

now read the whole of book 4
And see what iraneus actually said: stop cherry picking out of context.

At the time iraneus wrote , the NT was a long way in the future. And iraneus notes the canons of the time e.g. Marcions were rejected by Rome

No New Testament Yet? Then How does Irenaeus know about two Testaments and then quotes from the New Testament to refute "False knowledge". From book IV/XXXII

1. After this fashion also did a presbyter, a disciple of the apostles, reason with respect to the two testaments, proving that both were truly from one and the same God. For [he maintained] that there was no other God besides Him who made and fashioned us, and that the discourse of those men has no foundation who affirm that this world of ours was made either by angels, or by any other power whatsoever, or by another God. For if a man be once moved away from the Creator of all things, and if he grant that this creation to which we belong was formed by any other or through any other [than the one God], he must of necessity fall into much inconsistency, and many contradictions of this sort; to which he will [be able to] furnish no explanations which can be regarded as either probable or true. And, for this reason, those who introduce other doctrines conceal from us the opinion which they themselves hold respecting God, because they are aware of the untenable and absurd nature of their doctrine, and are afraid lest, should they be vanquished, they should have some difficulty in making good their escape. But if any one believes in [only] one God, who also made all things by the Word, as Moses likewise says, “God said, Let there be light: and there was light;”2 and as we read in the Gospel, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was nothing made;” and the Apostle Paul [says] in like manner, “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all”4—this man will first of all “hold the head, from which the whole body is compacted and bound together, and, through means of every joint according to the measure of the ministration of each several part, maketh increase of the body to the edification of itself in love.” And then shall every word also seem consistent to him,6 if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out.
2. For all the apostles taught that there were indeed two testaments among the two peoples; but that it was one and the same God who appointed both for the advantage of those men (for whose sakes the testaments were given) who were to believe in God, I have proved in the third book from the very teaching of the apostles; and that the first testament was not given without reason, or to no purpose, or in an accidental sort of manner; but that it subdued8 those to whom it was given to the service of God, for their benefit (for God needs no service from men), and exhibited a type of heavenly things, inasmuch as man was not yet able to see the things of God through means of immediate vision; and foreshadowed the images of those things which [now actually] exist in the Church, in order that our faith might be firmly established;10 and contained a prophecy of things to come, in order that man might learn that God has foreknowledge of all things.


Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, pp. 505–506). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.


Iraneus goes on to state that Apostolic doctrine is in harmony with the scriptures. He continues in chapter XXXIII:

8. True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution5 of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved,7 without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].

Ibid

I can go on if you need more. Yes, do read the entire fourth book. In fact read all of Irenaeus.

 

[GUANO]

The Bible is "sufficiently clear" to draw the elect to Christ. Now, does it reveal all of the mysteries of God and leave no question unanswered? No.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Less divisions of the statement of faith. Differences in what you would call liturgy. The liturgy for your church is a unifying element of faith. Whereas for Evangelicals it is the zeal to spread the Gospel, ministry works and planting churches. Very much like the first evangelists.

The greatest unity among Evangelicals is the partnerships with other churches in local community ministry and overseas missionaries.

Just like the early church, like Jesus commanded.

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

The same thing that stops a wayward Catholic from going down the street and receiving communion at a different parish...nothing.

 

[Athanasius377]

I'd say tradition is declared in this order-
Ecumenical councils (so read their canons),
Synod's and minor councils,
Writings of the fathers.

In the RCC they have a much better catechism then in the OC, probably because they are much more strict in their dogma.

I bought a book on liturgical tradition, as well as "The development of the liturgy in the Byzantine rite" - written by an Anglican. For saints you'll want to read the synaxis.
There is a series by some ex Protestant called The faith- it's basically a comprehensive catechism.

Thanks for the tip. I actually have quite a number of those books in my library .one question, who was the author on the Byzantine rite, Dom Gregory Dix?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Just like the early church, like Jesus commanded.

The same thing that stops a wayward Catholic from going down the street and receiving communion at a different parish...nothing.

You sure about that? Because receiving the Sacrament after ex-communication is sacrilege. Those aren’t stakes most people are willing to play for.

 

[Phil 1:21]

You sure about that? Because receiving the Sacrament after ex-communication is sacrilege. Those aren’t stakes most people are willing to play for.

Well, evidently there is supposed to be some grave penalty for being ex-communicated from the RCC, but that didn't stop the person in question from ending up there anyway. It kind of reminds of that scene from Animal House where the fraternity is put on double secret probation.

Perhaps if you could spell out the "stakes" it would be helpful. Thanks.

 

[redleghunter]

If the very bishops who had the laying on of hands and succession of the Apostles couldn't be trusted, then WHO could you trust?

Some turned out to be heretics.

 

[redleghunter]

now read the whole of book 4
And see what iraneus actually said: stop cherry picking out of context.

I have several times. What's your point and if I quoted the full book and chapter it just furthers my point.

So please establish your opposing argument and link to the source material.

At the time iraneus wrote , the NT was a long way in the future. And iraneus notes the canons of the time e.g. Marcions were rejected by Rome

Irenaeus quotes from 25 of 27 NT books which would later be called into the canon. Not seeing your point here. Is your point the 27 books of the NT were not recognized as Holy or Sacred Scriptures before the canon was established?

iraneus also stated that the truth of scripture could be found by listening to the doctrine of the church at Rome,

Source the quote please. And when you explain which doctrines were not already written in Holy Scriptures.

and he criticises gnostics for disregarding scripture and tradition wherever it suits them.

He criticized the Gnostics for not being able to justify their secret supposed apostolic traditions which apparently were not written down, nor to be found in Holy Scriptures and were viva voce.

Just like modern day Protestants do.

Actually the Gnostic viva voce traditions are more in line with the supposed Sacred Tradition your church promotes as 'always been known' but never written down. I don't see Irenaeus quoting canons and bulls of the church in Against Heresies. He does quote extensively from the OT and NT books and when he uses the term 'apostolic tradition' he refers to the rule of faith handed down from the apostles.

Scripture says the foundation of truth is the church, which dovetails with iraneus defining which church!

Indeed the church, called out ones, ekklesia are the pillar and foundation of Truth. Meaning the church upholds the Truth as received from Christ and His apostles, not the creators of Truth.

 

[redleghunter]

You either care about truth or you don't.
If you care you will look it up and find it.
Some of Luther's later writings are fascinating.

Sorry Sir you made the claim it is incumbent upon you to source the assertions.

If you want to make whatever point you were making, then you need to provide the evidence.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Hugh Wybrew.

 

[jamesbond007]

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.

The Westminster Confession of Faith says of the Bible...

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture of other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (WCF 1.7)

It's a nuanced statement that affirms:

1. Not every passage of Scripture is equally clear in itself. Some passages are difficult to interpret.
2. Not every passage of Scripture is equally clear to all people. Adults understand parts of Scripture that children don't. Married people understand parts of Scripture that single people don't. Educated people understand parts of Scripture that uneducated people don't. Poor people understand parts of Scripture that rich people don't. Etc...
3. Yet the things that are necessary for salvation (things to be known, believed, and obeyed) are so clearly laid out in some place or another that anyone can gain a sufficient understanding of them. This includes clergy and laity, educated and uneducated, men and women, adults and children, etc... Of course the caveat is that people have to put some work into understanding the Bible. This is what is meant by the "due use of ordinary means."

The basic idea is that the Bible is sufficiently clear. The most important things in Scripture - things necessary to salvation - are able to be understood by all based on their own reading and study of Scripture.

This doctrine is called the clarity of Scripture. This doctrine is implied in many places in Scripture. Here are just a few:

Psalm 119:130 - The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.

Proverbs 1:4 - to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth

Deuteronomy 6:6-7 - 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

Acts 17:11 - Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

1 John 2:27 - 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.
​

Other Scriptures could be cited. But in sum we see that the Bible is able to make the simple wise. The unlearned can read it and grow in knowledge of God. Also the common people of Israel were commanded to know God's word and teach it to their children. This implies that God's word is able to be understood. Furthermore, the Jews in Berea were counted noble because they searched the Scriptures for themselves to test the apostles' preaching.

This stands in contradiction to RCC and EO teaching. According to these traditions, the Scriptures are not sufficiently clear. In the Medieval era before the Reformation it was illegal in many places for private Christians to gather together to read the Bible. And the Bible was not translated into the common language because it was supposed that the Bible is not sufficiently clear - it is not able to be understood by the common people.

The RCC and EO teach that the people of God need ordained clergy in order to tell them what the Bible means - otherwise they are without hope. In their view, more authoritative words from God are needed (which come through the church) in order to clarify Scripture. All of this goes back to the root idea that the Bible alone is not sufficiently clear.

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.

The Scripture is authoritative, complete and infallible, but it isn't clear. I think this is why we have Bible studies and leaders. For example, what day is the Sabbath?

And I would think we have the various Christian denominations because of it albeit it isn't anywhere near 33,000 .

 

[Athanasius377]

Hugh Wybrew.

Thanks . I'll be on the lookout for the book.

 

[☦Marius☦]

I have several times. What's your point and if I quoted the full book and chapter it just furthers my point.

So please establish your opposing argument and link to the source material.


Irenaeus quotes from 25 of 27 NT books which would later be called into the canon. Not seeing your point here. Is your point the 27 books of the NT were not recognized as Holy or Sacred Scriptures before the canon was established?




Source the quote please. And when you explain which doctrines were not already written in Holy Scriptures.



He criticized the Gnostics for not being able to justify their secret supposed apostolic traditions which apparently were not written down, nor to be found in Holy Scriptures and were viva voce.


Actually the Gnostic viva voce traditions are more in line with the supposed Sacred Tradition your church promotes as 'always been known' but never written down. I don't see Irenaeus quoting canons and bulls of the church in Against Heresies. He does quote extensively from the OT and NT books and when he uses the term 'apostolic tradition' he refers to the rule of faith handed down from the apostles.

Indeed the church, called out ones, ekklesia are the pillar and foundation of Truth. Meaning the church upholds the Truth as received from Christ and His apostles, not the creators of Truth.

The only regard in which Gnosticism and Orthodoxy are similar is that they are both liturgical, and the Gnostic rite resembles the Eastern rite.

However the Gnostics use different texts then we do and call them scripture. They also pull doctrine from supposed visions they have during meditation. This is entirely different then educated spirit led debate at church councils.

 

[straykat]

The Scripture is authoritative, complete and infallible, but it isn't clear. I think this is why we have Bible studies and leaders. For example, what day is the Sabbath?

And I would think we have the various Christian denominations because of it albeit it isn't anywhere near 33,000 .

I didn't know there was confusion about the Sabbath? It's always been Saturday..the last day. The Church started celebrating the Lord's day, coinciding with the first day of the week when he rose from the dead. This is Sunday. Going back to earliest church fathers, like the epistles of Barnabas (1st or 2nd cent). I suppose when some want to call this Sabbath, that's fair though.. and confusing.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Well, evidently there is supposed to be some grave penalty for being ex-communicated from the RCC, but that didn't stop the person in question from ending up there anyway. It kind of reminds of that scene from Animal House where the fraternity is put on double secret probation.

Perhaps if you could spell out the "stakes" it would be helpful. Thanks.

I think you’re missing it. The person would be excommunicated. That’s one penalty: being outside communion with the Church.

Committing sacrilege on top of that is even heavier since the person would then be considered guilty of Our Lord’s blood.

With respect, this is something I’ve noticed Protestants don’t seem to really grasp. Being hell-bound is one thing. Having His body and blood against your account is something even bigger.

Unworthy Communion Is Sacrilege | Catholic Answers

 

[thecolorsblend]

Well, evidently there is supposed to be some grave penalty for being ex-communicated from the RCC, but that didn't stop the person in question from ending up there anyway. It kind of reminds of that scene from Animal House where the fraternity is put on double secret probation.

Perhaps if you could spell out the "stakes" it would be helpful. Thanks.

I think you’re missing it. The person would be excommunicated. That’s one penalty: being outside communion with the Church.

Committing sacrilege on top of that is even heavier since the person would then be considered guilty of Our Lord’s blood.

With respect, this is something I’ve noticed Protestants don’t seem to really grasp. Being hell-bound is one thing. Having His body and blood against your account is something even bigger.

Unworthy Communion Is Sacrilege | Catholic Answers

 

[Phil 1:21]

I think you’re missing it. The person would be excommunicated. That’s one penalty: being outside communion with the Church.

Committing sacrilege on top of that is even heavier since the person would then be considered guilty of Our Lord’s blood.

With respect, this is something I’ve noticed Protestants don’t seem to really grasp. Being hell-bound is one thing. Having His body and blood against your account is something even bigger.

Unworthy Communion Is Sacrilege | Catholic Answers

And the "stakes" are?

 

[Phil 1:21]

(duplicate)

 

[thecolorsblend]

And the "stakes" are?

Did you miss the part about an excommunicant being guilty of His body and blood by receiving the sacrament?