Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[redleghunter]

Theology aside, it's kind of obvious that tradition would hold a place. I mean, if I were to set up a project at a job.. then not everything I wrote in email would suffice. What about all of the hands on direction I gave to each team member? That's akin to the oral tradition in the church. That's what Paul is also attesting to in 2 Thess. Think about it! The guy traveled the length of Asia Minor, along with much of the Hellenized world. He pastored many churches for years.

And that's just one guy too. Think about all of the Apostles. Then the 70. Then other major followers, like Mary Magdalene, the Mother Mary, etc.. There was a ton of action going on in the church... as it would go on in any similar movement. Do you think everything is encompassed merely in writing? Life simply doesn't work that way. In fact, the majority of life doesn't. A year from now, we may not even remember most of the things we did this month. Nor will it be recorded. But it had an impact in one way or another.

I don't argue the Church should be devoid of tradition. However, tradition should be tested against the only inspired infallible standard which is the word of God.

 

[straykat]

I don't argue the Church should be devoid of tradition. However, tradition should be tested against the only inspired infallible standard which is the word of God.

Well, I wholeheartedly agree. I'm still a lover of scripture first and foremost. But I think you'll find what was normative for the Church was also a supremacy of scripture.. well into the later Councils. There's questionable stuff among individual writers too, but I would say it wasn't normative.

 

[redleghunter]

There's questionable stuff among individual writers too, but I would say it wasn't normative.

That's because they are fallible men who got a lot right and did so when they stuck to the infallible standard.

 

[meconstant3402]

I don't think the Scriptures are clear as a recipe for pancakes is clear. According to the Gospels some people are excluded from understanding the parables. But I think the Word is Alive and so if your heart is pure before God you will see God in the Scriptures.

 

[Athanasius377]

You need to study development of the canon, not impose your own meaning on what iraneus says. It is called " confirmation bias"- a typical Protestant trait,

I have studied the development of the canon. Here the most recent book on the subject that I looking at on my shelf:

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Revisited-Establishing-Authority-Testament/dp/1433505002

I have demonstrated what Irenaeus actually said and you have not. Its called "research" not confirmation bias.

We have iraneus to thank for confirming the four gospels but the rest was still fluid.

Not nearly as fluid as you think given how often he quotes from Paul.

For example.. He speaks about Hermas. So is that scripture in your book?
He calls 1 Clement scripture.

Good reading, but no.


The main thing we have to thank iraneus for is stating unequivocally that the teaching of succession bishops are the only way to trust what istrue doctrine, also stating that Rome had primacy in that regard,

Here's the relevant section of the succession of bishops in case you missed it the first time. So no dodge, you just don't like the (Iranaeus's) answer. And what did Rome have primacy in, succession of bishops or doctrine? I can't tell you mean here. And when you clarify do provide a quote and source because you have been making assertions with no proof.

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, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system8 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].

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, p. 508). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.


Sola scriptura is neither what Jesus preached nor the early church did. Protestants forced that manmade tradition on us a millennium later. Causing explosion in the variety of meanings of doctrine.

Show me one saying of Jesus apart from the pages of the NT. No one is arguing that Jesus preached Sola Scriptura.


Hardly surprising since Jesus sent his apostles to teach! He did not say write this, and certainly not "read this " on which Protestants base their entire theology.

How would you know Jesus sent his apostles to teach in the first place?


I am still waiting for your response on what constitutes Tradition. I am beginning to think you cannot answer the question.

 

[Naalderiis]

Doesn't that set the bar rather low? The Holy Spirit could've clarified a few (or a lot of) sections and saved the Protestant ecclesial communities a lot of unnecessary disunity, right? Surely that would've been preferable to being in such doctrinal disagreement with each other, wouldn't it?

disunity has it's purposes too. you don't use both hands to do the exact same thing do you? you likely use them separately to more easily accomplish you work.

trying to force everyone to be the left hand is weird.
lefties may argue that the thumb of the right is on the wrong side.
righties might say the lefties are trying twist the wrong direction.
they're both gripping the jar just fine and have to twist in opposite directions to open it.

but oh man those feet don't even have a grip on the jar. left and right hands agree the feet must be doing something wrong.

people are gonna argue about things. truth is we're all too small and standing in the middle of the big picture so we certainly don't have a good view of it.

do the things we disagree over specifically mean that others don't have Christ in their hearts?
if so, it's certainly worth arguing over. if not, then hey it could also be worth arguing over.
just don't be out to hurt other people and don't assume they're out to hurt you and we'll all probably learn something from it.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

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 real problem is in the fallibility of those who read the scriptures and attempt to interpret them.

http://www.virtueonline.org/basic-g...n-part-iii-humbled-facts-interpretive-process

Every interpretation comes from a “place” to the extent that no interpreter can fully avoid the influence of his or her highly complex social situation and cultural context. As we read and study any biblical text, what we perceive and value is inevitably colored by our own background, culture, experiences, personality characteristics, and presuppositions. This principle is an underlying foundation to all biblical (indeed all kinds of) interpretation. I refer the reader to Michael Barram’s article:. “The Bible, Mission, and Social Location: Toward a Missional Hermeneutic,” Interpretation, 43 (2007), p 44.

Humility is always in order. It is impossible for human beings to avoid being biased, so one's perspective of history (as well as the current state of affairs) is always moot, always subject to both unintentional and intentional spin. This happens with our interpretations of scripture... and our interpretations of the interpreters and theologians as well. Even what our most respected leaders have written, including the Pope and top Reformed theologians. There is no getting around our personal interpretation of every speck of information that comes our way… and thus there is no getting around our biases and fallibility. It would be a lot easier if all the leaders of the churches and all the big name theologians agreed, but they have not. And they will not do so on this side of heaven.

The approach with the most integrity is to admit one's biases on the front end and then proceed to back up one’s beliefs with scriptures, facts, reason, and traditional interpretations. And then don't expect others to see it your way.

 

[Petros2015]

No.

 

[thecolorsblend]

disunity has it's purposes too. you don't use both hands to do the exact same thing do you? you likely use them separately to more easily accomplish you work.

trying to force everyone to be the left hand is weird.
lefties may argue that the thumb of the right is on the wrong side.
righties might say the lefties are trying twist the wrong direction.
they're both gripping the jar just fine and have to twist in opposite directions to open it.

but oh man those feet don't even have a grip on the jar. left and right hands agree the feet must be doing something wrong.

people are gonna argue about things. truth is we're all too small and standing in the middle of the big picture so we certainly don't have a good view of it.

do the things we disagree over specifically mean that others don't have Christ in their hearts?
if so, it's certainly worth arguing over. if not, then hey it could also be worth arguing over.
just don't be out to hurt other people and don't assume they're out to hurt you and we'll all probably learn something from it.

Why would Our Lord pray for unity if disunity was a desirable thing?

I recognize and even value the potential for different people possessed of different talents managing different tasks within the Church. But that is achievable in a context of visible, corporate unity.

 

[marineimaging]

I had to search for what are the “five solas,” and what do they mean because I have never heard of them being spoken of in that context. As I read through the following from www.monergism.com I realized that I was aware of what the terms meant and furthermore, as I read them I embraced them even more firmly. The “five solas” is a term used to designate five great foundational rallying cries of the Protestant reformers. They are as follows: “Sola Scriptura” ; “Sola Gratia” (Grace Alone); “Sola Fide” (Faith Alone); “Solus Christus” (Christ Alone); and “Soli Deo Gloria” (To God Alone Be Glory).

1. Reformers: “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone) Our foundation is from scripture alone.
Roman Catholic Church: the foundation for faith and practice is a combination of the scriptures, sacred tradition, and the teachings of the magisterium and the pope;

2. Reformers: "Sola Gratia" - We are saved by God's (Grace Alone)
Catholic Church: We are saved through a combination of God's grace, the merits that we accumulate through penance and good works, and the many merits that the saints before us accumulated;

3. Reformers: “Sola Fide” We are justified by (Faith Alone), which God freely credits to the account of those who believe.
Catholic Church: We are justified by faith and the works that we produce, which the righteousness that God infuses in us through faith brings about.

4. Reformers: “Solus Christus” We are saved by the merits of (Christ Alone) , and we come to God through (Christ Alone).
Catholic Church: We are saved by the merits of Christ and the saints, and that we approach God through Christ, the saints, and Mary, who all pray and intercede for us.

5. Reformers: “Soli Deo Gloria” All glory for a sinners salvation is (To God Alone Be Glory), as is taught in the scriptures.
Catholic Church: The glory for a sinner's salvation can be attributed partly to Christ, partly to Mary and the saints, and partly to the sinner himself.

It has been my experience that the Bible is the living, breathing Word of God. If I do not understand something while reading it at that moment then it isn't for me to need to understand it at that moment. Even though I think I am looking for that particular subject at that moment. Again, based on experience I know that I will understand it later, when I need to, and that is according to God the most high. By remaining persistent in my belief and in my searches I have seen this play out fully and when I need to know something, it becomes clear as a bell AND I also see why I didn't understand it when I thought I needed to.

 

[straykat]

No.

FYI, I rated this "funny" not because it isn't true. It's just funny to read it after all of these back n forth debates.

 

[Mountainmike]

Now read Iraneus again.

Who clearly states that true doctrine can be found in the teaching of appointed succession with primacy at Rome. That is the magisterium.

And the apostles and succesors were clearly given the power to "bind and loose" which means rule on doctrine.

Protestants were not given that power which is why they disagree on literally everthing.

The early church was not sola scriptura.

The problem protestants had was if they wanted to change the meaning of scripture from what the church "the pillar of truth" had said, they had to find a way to disregard the church, so they could make up their own meaning. Which was the false manmade tradition of "sola scriptura" a pure invention of reformers.

Problem is they missed the fact that in empowering many to give scriptuer a meaning they would inevitably get many alternative meanings. WHich has happened to this day. And so the protestants fracture with monotonous regularity because of it.

Where was the magisterium located in the 2nd century, or even the 3rd century?

It did not exist.

You still need to answer why it takes a ruling of men to determine what is inspired of God? By your Sola Ecclesia model, Jesus and His disciples should have listened to the Sanhedrin for matters of truth. They did not. They relied on Scriptures to establish truth claims. Not once does an apostle cite tradition in their epistles to establish their truth claims.

 

[straykat]

The problem protestants had was if they wanted to change the meaning of scripture from what the church "the pillar of truth" had said, they had to find a way to disregard the church, so they could make up their own meaning. Which was the false manmade tradition of "sola scriptura" a pure invention of reformers.

Problem is they missed the fact that in empowering many to give scriptuer a meaning they would inevitably get many alternative meanings. WHich has happened to this day. And so the protestants fracture with monotonous regularity because of it.

I also think it gave power to skeptics and the Enlightenment. If scripture becomes the only basis of faith, all guns fire on it as well. There's been nothing but massive assault. While the actual Guardian of the Canon (the Church) is made irrelevant, her authority falsely diminished, her ownership of the scriptures tossed out, and everyone comes out of the woodwork taking their potshots.

History would have been so much different if the Church's authority was acknowledged, and heeded. They could simply say, "No, this is our book. Get out of here." Instead, it became community property... or at least, people have deluded themselves into thinking it's community property.

 

[Athanasius377]

Now read Iraneus again.

Who clearly states that true doctrine can be found in the teaching of appointed succession with primacy at Rome. That is the magisterium.

And the apostles and succesors were clearly given the power to "bind and loose" which means rule on doctrine.

Protestants were not given that power which is why they disagree on literally everthing.

The early church was not sola scriptura.

The problem protestants had was if they wanted to change the meaning of scripture from what the church "the pillar of truth" had said, they had to find a way to disregard the church, so they could make up their own meaning. Which was the false manmade tradition of "sola scriptura" a pure invention of reformers.

Problem is they missed the fact that in empowering many to give scriptuer a meaning they would inevitably get many alternative meanings. WHich has happened to this day. And so the protestants fracture with monotonous regularity because of it.

Provide the quote and source of where Irenaenus states this.

 

[TKICBS]

The reason that the Vatican holds that the scriptures are not clear is simply because they don't have the Holy Ghost. They are reprobate. Pope Francis has said that it is not good to seek a personal relationship with Jesus. He says he will baptize aliens , though it is identical to ancient scripts found in caves. They do not even believe it is the Word of God. They dress in scarlet and purple without the knowledge that the harlot in Rev 17 dresses in scarlet and purple.
Many Catholics do belong to Christ. This is obvious as Rev 18 tells them to come out of her so this would indicate that rotten. They follow blindly.
Most Christians won't talk like this because it might offend someone. I would rather offend someone that refuses truth than miss the opportunity to save someone from eternal fire.
O yes, the Pope says there is no hell. It was invented by the Vatican.
It is not hard to prove that the Vatican is the harlot of Rev 17 if one is willing to look at the evidence. We are told to study prophecy as light that shines in a dark place until the day dawns and the morning star arises in our hearts. Yet it is even taught in many, if not most, churches today that we don't need to understand prophecy and to study it is to negative and scary.
So much for the blessing found when reading the book of Revelation. It is only scary if one does not trust God to look after them. Fear is the devils greatest tool to keep people in the dark. Fear of offending someone is strong in the church today. But is is an ofence to Christ. How will our children know not to receive the mark of the beast if they don't study. How will anyone even know what the mark is if they don't study. Will they just stumble on the truth one day? There are 3 prevalent doctrines on what the mark is. One is the conversion to Islam and the seal, but Islam is not scarlet or purple. Another is that it is the alien implant that some have been given when abducted, but do aliens wear scarlet and purple? The other is that it is the veri chip that the NWO wants to have implanted in every human. It was developed by Motorola in the US. The Vatican is 100 percent behind the NWO. Young girls who have been brought up in Illuminati families are taken to the Vatican at age about 12 and forced to watch a child sacrifice performed by a Catholic priest and swear to serve the NWO. Research Slavi, Illuminati defector.
Research the vow that the Jesuits have to make when they reach a certain level. Understand that the Pope most surely has said that vow.
Research the translation of the Latin Easter service in the Vatican. They say that Satin is the father of Jesus in Latin.
Your soul is far more important than your religion. If you are a member of the Catholic Church do your research before it is to late. Do it for the sake of those you love in the Catholic church.
Try hard to understand this as a moderator and allow it to be posted. Many of my posts are not allowed. Do you really think the Lord does not want this knowledge out there? If it offends, so be it. The bible offends the devil.

 

[redleghunter]

Now read Iraneus again.

Who clearly states that true doctrine can be found in the teaching of appointed succession with primacy at Rome. That is the magisterium.

And the apostles and succesors were clearly given the power to "bind and loose" which means rule on doctrine.

Protestants were not given that power which is why they disagree on literally everthing.

The early church was not sola scriptura.

The problem protestants had was if they wanted to change the meaning of scripture from what the church "the pillar of truth" had said, they had to find a way to disregard the church, so they could make up their own meaning. Which was the false manmade tradition of "sola scriptura" a pure invention of reformers.

Problem is they missed the fact that in empowering many to give scriptuer a meaning they would inevitably get many alternative meanings. WHich has happened to this day. And so the protestants fracture with monotonous regularity because of it.

Considering you did not address my post, I will wait.

 

[Mountainmike]

Just read it yourself start with against heresies 4
It is only a few pages long.
His meaning is clear.
And it isnt sola scriptura.

The issue to recognise is the church - bishops in apostolic succession - is the arbiter of true doctrine even in iraneus time.

For sure the church developed. What was an acorn became a sapling then an oak.
They are still the same species, despite a developed structure.

Provide the quote and source of where Irenaenus states this.

 

[redleghunter]

Provide the quote and source of where Irenaenus states this.

I believe I address the 'tradition' Irenaeus discusses here:

Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

 

[straykat]

I wonder.. if Protestants are still strongly Sola Scriptura, why do they hold on to Augustinian's Original Sin doctrine? Calvin and Luther built everything around it, in fact. Literally everything, from Luther's original disgust and neuroses that got him to embrace Sola Fide in the first place... to everything about Calvin's "Total Depravity" to Predestination to Free Will. But did you know it was based off a fault in Augustine's Latin translation of Romans 5:12 in the first place? His views were not normative for the entire rest of the patristic writers. He had one big supporter: Pope Gregory. That's it! At least afaik. Yet people would hang everything on this teaching, which is based off of one man's reading... of a bad Latin wording.

 

[Athanasius377]

Just read it yourself start with against heresies 4
It is only a few pages long.
His meaning is clear.
And it isnt sola scriptura.

The issue to recognise is the church - bishops in apostolic succession - is the arbiter of true doctrine even in iraneus time.

For sure the church developed. What was an acorn became a sapling then an oak.
They are still the same species, despite a developed structure.

Every assertion in this post is incorrect.

Book 4 of against heresies is more than just a few pages .

No quote because he doesn't say what you want him to say does he? I actually gave you the relevant quote and source which you seemed to have ignored so I'll repost it for you:


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, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system8 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].

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, p. 508). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.


And the oak tree comparison is a Cardinal Newman quote whose weakness is that I can literally prove anything using that reasoning . Furthermore the idea contradicts what Irenaenus just said above.