Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[straykat]

Oh, and the other biggie. Although Catholics originally opened the gates with the Medici:

Usury...

If Protestants are Sola Scriptura, why in God's name did they become even more flexible with this? I can't describe how destructive an effect this had. We're all debt slaves.. even those of us who never supported it. And sadly, at this point, even Islam is more faithful to this teaching than most Christians. If that isn't something to be embarrassed about, I don't know what is.

/rant off

Seriously though. If people are Sola Scriptura, I'll happily support it. And the first thing to do is dismantling usury and central banks.

 

[sparow]

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.

As I understand, Sola Scriptura was an argument in a debate associated with the impure division of Catholicism and Protestantism, along with salvation by works verses salvation by faith. At best Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of men; understanding comes from God, a little at a time; there is a process that involves wrestling with angels and seeking the lord with all ones heart.

Jesus spoke in parables so He would not be easily understood.

 

[Cis.jd]

Actually your church believes otherwise as Scriptures are the servant to your magisterium.

So since your arguments all went out the window, not to mention you shutting down your own case with the whole asking of evidence of church fathers accepting more than the 27 NT books... you now are making up stuff.

Don't need a quote. Just need you to list the traditions Paul is referring to.

He didn't say anything specific, he just said he left it out of the letter. Why would he refer to something in 2nd Thess the same time he is saying that he is not putting it in the letter. What it is showing you (and what you don't want to admit) is there are more truths out of the written format, so it isn't just scripture alone. You've lost the argument.

Yes indeed. Now what did he say was received in faith?

It's in section 1 right before your quote:

1. The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciplesthis faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophetsthe dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, Ephesians 1:10 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confessPhilippians 2:10-11 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, Ephesians 6:12 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortalityon the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, I.10 (St. Irenaeus)​

The rule of faith is what was received. Which thanks to New Advent site, they nicely note the Scriptures which are the source of the rule of faith. Therefore, the tradition the church was faithful in communicating was handed down in the Holy Scriptures. Irenaeus later explains this:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)​

Now you are trying to hard. Scriptures are a rule of faith but they are not the only basis of faith, that is what this whole copy/pasted block says. Again, Catholics are Scripture first just like Iranaeus explains. We need scripture but at the same time it has to be under the guidance of the church.. you once again just killed your own argument and can't even see it.

 

[JESUSKiDtommy]

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.

 

[JESUSKiDtommy]

It would seem that any human alive no matter the state of their life, would call on GOD the FATHER to reveal to them what HE would have them know about HIS WORD, as in it is to be revealed rather than figured out. Such as with GOD showing me that the parable of the talents best interpretation is that we are all born with a certain amount of CARING in our heart for others. Some have one, some two, some five, the parable isn't about how much LOVE we have, but allowing GODS LOVE to grow within us for the benefit of the Kingdom, by being obedient to CARE for people. And where else would a lukewarm Christian land than in the place of outer darkness that JESUS mentions in that parable. Thankful to GOD for not burning in Hell yet nowhere near being able to escape the fact that since they cared so little, they are now reaping what they have sown.

 

[redleghunter]

So since your arguments all went out the window, not to mention you shutting down your own case with the whole asking of evidence of church fathers accepting more than the 27 NT books... you now are making up stuff.

You failed to show me which father considered other than the 27 books as Holy Scriptures. Name some and we can discuss.

He didn't say anything specific, he just said he left it out of the letter. Why would he refer to something in 2nd Thess the same time he is saying that he is not putting it in the letter. What it is showing you (and what you don't want to admit) is there are more truths out of the written format, so it isn't just scripture alone. You've lost the argument.

Ok, you don't have an answer. If you quote Scriptures you should probably have an answer as how that passage of verse applies to your point. Paul mentions "tradition" and immediately every Catholic within miles think he is speaking of what they consider their current Holy Tradition. If this is still your point you should be able to at least present an argument on what he meant by tradition and what exact traditions.

Only the Gnostics believed in an unwritten viva voce tradition in the era of the NT and early church.

Now you are trying to hard. Scriptures are a rule of faith but they are not the only basis of faith, that is what this whole copy/pasted block says. Again, Catholics are Scripture first just like Iranaeus explains. We need scripture but at the same time it has to be under the guidance of the church.. you once again just killed your own argument and can't even see it.

I copied that portion for a reason. Your out of context quote was another appeal for a blank check from the Banco Sacred Tradition. Irenaeus was specific in what tradition he speaks of.

 

[Cis.jd]

Irenaeus did not confirm the gospel of Thomas.

I never said he did, i don't understand where this sentence of yours is about. I'm just telling you that all these quotes and arguments concerning what Iraneaus and the rest of the church fathers of the 1st-2nd CE accepted and rejected is actually destroying your "are the scriptures sufficient/sola scriptura" case.
Why do you care and why do you see their views/acceptance on 25/27 NT books of any significance, when on the other hand you are going off about how bad majesterium following is.

Additionally, your arguments are actually showing how the Catholic church has made sure that the traditions and teachings of people like Iranaeus and before him were carried on. We canonized the NT as 27 only and one of the main reasons for what we selected was because of what Iranaeus, Martyr, and Ignatious said. So you showed how we never deviated or changed any of what they said and still kept the traditions of the 1-2nd CE. thanks.

 

[straykat]

There was no reason to question the writings circulating by that time.. unless you hated Jews, like Marcion. That was his main motivation. Otherwise, it was easy to agree on what the church stood for at that time. You had to be a freak like him in order to stand out.

edit: And I don't think Gnostic writings existed very early. Only after the melding of philosophy and Christianity do I think it came.. starting with Justin and Origen and others, like I mentioned earlier.

 

[Cis.jd]

You failed to show me which father considered other than the 27 books as Holy Scriptures. Name some and we can discuss.

So you don't read at all, do you. Did you not read the part that this argument you are repeating is all just a trick from me to make you own yourself. Yes, no church father back in the 1-2nd ad accepted the gnostics, but you should not care. Why are you following what the church says about which books where true and which where gnostic? You asking for me to show you church fathers accepting more than 27 is you contradicting Sola Scriptura, you just showed a reliance of Church approval.

[quote[Ok, you don't have an answer. If you quote Scriptures you should probably have an answer as how that passage of verse applies to your point. Paul mentions "tradition" and immediately every Catholic within miles think he is speaking of what they consider their current Holy Tradition. If this is still your point you should be able to at least present an argument on what he meant by tradition and what exact traditions.[/quote]
No, we aren't talking about "holy traditions" those verses are telling you that scripture alone is false. There are things taught through oral tradition, some letters that were left out, etc as those verses said.
You really are spinning in circles and not being relevant to the context of what is being argued to you. "Holy Tradition"? what are you talking about?

Only the Gnostics believed in an unwritten viva voce tradition in the era of the NT and early church.
I copied that portion for a reason. Your out of context quote was another appeal for a blank check from the Banco Sacred Tradition. Irenaeus was specific in what tradition he speaks of.

I know you copied it for a reason but you did not realize that it supports catholicism. Because you are referencing the early church and what they ruled as true.. There was no universal canon regardless of the gospels already being known, no church declared that there was 27 only.. so the gnostics had free game in poking in their lies because there was not an official verdict on the canon yet.. however the early church states that these were false, and you are using that as an argument which means you just destroyed your side of the debate while supporting the catholic side.

 

[Cis.jd]

There was no reason to question the writings circulating by that time.. unless you hated Jews, like Marcion. That was his main motivation. Otherwise, it was easy to agree on what the church stood for at that time. You had to be a freak like him in order to stand out.

edit: And I don't think Gnostic writings existed very early. Only after the melding of philosophy and Christianity do I think it came.. starting with Justin and Origen and others, like I mentioned earlier.

But that isn't the point. The point is, why would the sola scriptura people quote what the early church stated as gnostic or not. The church has no authority over scripture so who are they to Protestants to tell them what is canon and what isn't?

 

[redleghunter]

Additionally, your arguments are actually showing how the Catholic church has made sure that the traditions and teachings of people like Iranaeus and before him were carried on. We canonized the NT as 27 only and one of the main reasons for what we selected was because of what Iranaeus, Martyr, and Ignatious said. So you showed how we never deviated or changed any of what they said and still kept the traditions of the 1-2nd CE. thanks.

Now you can advance to why those pious men found the books of the NT as foundational to the faith. It wasn't a magisterium.

 

[straykat]

But that isn't the point. The point is, why would the sola scriptura people quote what the early church stated as gnostic or not. The church has no authority over scripture so who are they to Protestants to tell them what is canon and what isn't?

Oh, I agree with this. I'm just kind of musing something on the side. I think you made good points, in that he is relying on Tradition himself.

I just don't think he needs to be RC per se to accept Tradition

 

[straykat]

I would just add that some folks didn't have access to all of these writings at the same time. Yet they were Church authorities. Clement knew of some epistles, and only relied on sayings of Jesus. Not a Gospel.. let alone Gospels in the Plural. But he was a Bishop!

Where did he get the audacity to be a church leader, without having his KJV Bible?

 

[redleghunter]

So you don't read at all, do you. Did you not read the part that this argument you are repeating is all just a trick from me to make you own yourself. Yes, no church father back in the 1-2nd ad accepted the gnostics, but you should not care. Why are you following what the church says about which books where true and which where gnostic? You asking for me to show you church fathers accepting more than 27 is you contradicting Sola Scriptura, you just showed a reliance of Church approval.

You are operating from a false premise the Reformation rejected catholic teachings. Catholic is not a shingle on a church. It meant back in the 2nd century the teachings which were universal....Which had consensus. The consensus was always tested against Holy Scriptures.

I know you copied it for a reason but you did not realize that it supports catholicism. Because you are referencing the early church and what they ruled as true.. There was no universal canon regardless of the gospels already being known, no church declared that there was 27 only.. so the gnostics had free game in poking in their lies because there was not an official verdict on the canon yet.. however the early church states that these were false, and you are using that as an argument which means you just destroyed your side of the debate while supporting the catholic side.

It seems they knew what was of Divine origin and what was not.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)

Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 4.17)

 

[redleghunter]

But that isn't the point. The point is, why would the sola scriptura people quote what the early church stated as gnostic or not. The church has no authority over scripture so who are they to Protestants to tell them what is canon and what isn't?

What's of importance is how fallible men recognized the only infallible standard to test claims to the truth. Which is the word of God.

 

[straykat]

"When two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them.."

If you believe that the Holy Spirit guided the early church (and the canon), why not later? I'm not talking about any wayward Bishop (of which there were many).. I'm talking about the body of a Council. They had the same sincerity and faith behind it, as any other earlier councils.

And if you can't believe the Holy Spirit was working through that, then WHEN and can you ever trust anything? How does it make sense to dismiss all of that as uninspired, but then jump on the bandwagon of one individual (be it Luther/Calvin/Zwingli/etc). This is no different than the very thing the Reformers rejected to begin with: a virtual Papacy, of one man. One private Reformer setting himself against Councils and hundreds of church leaders, hashing out issues for decades at times, praying for guidance.

 

[redleghunter]

Oh, I agree with this. I'm just kind of musing something on the side. I think you made good points, in that he is relying on Tradition himself.

You completely missed the point. Irenaeus was not relying on some nebulous definition of tradition. He specifies what he meant by tradition, which was the rule of faith which later became the Apostles Creed and no Christian denies the Apostles Creed. Why? Because the creed is a summary of the Gospel as revealed in Holy Scriptures.

 

[straykat]

You completely missed the point. Irenaeus was not relying on some nebulous definition of tradition. He specifies what he meant by tradition, which was the rule of faith which later became the Apostles Creed and no Christian denies the Apostles Creed. Why? Because the creed is a summary of the Gospel as revealed in Holy Scriptures.

Irenaeus wouldn't even be a Bishop at all, if he didn't rely on tradition. His whole existence had history and weight behind it. He wasn't just some random theologian writing in his house.

 

[redleghunter]

Irenaeus wouldn't even be a Bishop at all, if he didn't rely on tradition. His whole existence had history and weight behind it. He wasn't just some random theologian writing in his house.

The pastoral epistles of Paul provided for the position of Presbyter which is also overseer and also bishop. So by Irenaeus being ordained a bishop it shows Paul's written instructions to Titus and Timothy were being followed.

Remember, Irenaeus claims the apostles taught in public and then wrote what they preached down and that is what was received:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)

 

[straykat]

Actually, on that note, the best I can say about how flexible Irenaeus was in terms of Tradition is how he approached the Montanists. He was sympathetic to them actually. They didn't teach outright heresy.. Their problem was they claimed authority through special revelation of the Holy Spirit. This upset the "tradition" of bishops. Irenaeus, while orthodox, stood up for them in the sense he didn't want anyone to be too harsh. But in the end, even he submitted to the Church's ruling. This was not a man who simply believed in private (either scripturally deduced or charismatic deduced) revelation.