Perspicuity of Scripture

[Sparkey]

Acts 8:18, 1Timothy 4:14, 2Timothy 2:16, Hebrews 6:2, and most of all Acts 13:2-4; For it is upon having hands laid on them that they become "sent" and the word most clearly applies: apo-stle, or as the church through Paul and others saw fit, they also called presbyters, or episcopos, or deaconos; etc.

I've recently posted a mini-essay about the words that are based in the English language upon such things. Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc., in it the point was made from the number of columns dedicated to each word and their derivatives as listed in the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). Is there a bias in our language or even in (perish the thought) the Dictionary itself?

It turns out that the denomination that was given the slang term, "The fighting saints," had more words to describe their position(s). For example, the ones who didn't have things like "[Denomation_Name] / Reformed" or "Bible Believing [Denomination_Name]" categories (those groups who had less divisions) also had less words that stemmed from their usage. The guys who would like to argue and contend for their beliefs had more terms at their disposal and more of their words made it into the common language.

Hardly a basis for doctrine and/or theology.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[About the Son of God]

I see that I didn't make myself clear. ...
I'm not a papist. I wasn't trying to suggest a strawman here. They didn't say, "[someone] was denying that the bible was the word of God," and I didn't mean to imply such.

I figured it might be something like that. No offense was meant or taken by me either, and I didn't intend an accusation.

I just wanted to point out that unless the O.P. intends to tie the doctrine to the reformation alone ; we're becoming trapped in a narrow sub-issue of high emotional volatility and anachronistic thinking.

In my own thinking,
I don't think scripture is easily interpreted about exactly how authority is granted to churches.

"He who hears you, hears me." vs. "whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant."
and again "For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants"
(Luke 9:1, Luke 19:11,12,17, etc.)

Since I have been talking about judgment and witnesses in other threads, consider this passage too: Matthew 18:15-18 (emphasis on 17) .

Although, as always, I should emphasize that salvation is found through faith; and that being under a bad authority, or being a simpler person with less understanding of scripture, can't take that away in and of itself.
Doing and choosing to do what one knows is wrong, however, is a path of sin, and may even end in deadly sin in which bad company can permanently ruin morals.

Jesus does, indeed, read hearts of those submitting to authority, even if a highly corrupt one ; and we find even the greatest of faith in times and places of adversity.
Matthew 8:8-9 ; Luke 7:9 ; Romans 1:7-8

Not that I want to suggest the instigation of a bad governance to have a good effect! But the result is there none the less, where sin abounded -- grace abounded all the more.

 

[By Grace]

It is hard to see you as "merely" asking a question. You persistently misrepresent the doctrine of Sola Scriptura when you demand that I have a verse for everything I say. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not claim that the Bible answers each and every question on greek grammer, science, etc. Neither do I need to show a verse with a latin phrase (sola Scriptura) to make the claim that the doctrine of sola scriptura is biblical.

Mondar, I found that this forum is not as wanting discussion or contrary positions to others as may be suspected, and that is why you may be getting some "push-back" from some here. As a whole, I assume that they are more literalistic, and less academic than other sites. This is not a put down of anyone, but that realization has made me change my writing.

When I saw the tile of this thread, I was elated because it took me back to grad school, and my first encounter with systematic theology. I loved it! I can remember my excitement as I first heard the professor mention the phrase, "Perspicuity of Scripture". It was like getting a key that opened up other realms and thoughts in Scripture, especially when being taught how to exegete God's Word.

Therefore, I went to an unpublished book I wrote in order to help some here see the wonders of the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture. The chapter from where it comes is about using Scripture as the best tool for apologetics.

Either God has spoken, and has not stuttered, or else he has stuttered. If he has stuttered, then where does the truth end, and the stuttering begin? Thus, apologetics is an either/or proposition.

That is why non-contradiction is so important. One view [the Neo-Orthodox view of Scripture] says God has slipped up, and that is the only way that I can explain it. The other view [Evangelical] says God has not slipped up and my understanding is not able to explain it; it is nevertheless true. All I need to do is state clearly what God has stated. The results are not my responsibility; they are God’s. All I am responsible for is to faithfully proclaim what is true. ​

Here is another definition from CARM

Sola Scriptura is the teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments are the final authority in all that they address (1 Cor. 4:6) and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition is judged by Scriptures. Sola Scriptura does not negate past councils or traditions. Instead, it is above them and they are to be judged by scripture.

​

The doctrine of sola scriptura does not deny the authority of the verbal messages of prophets and apostles. It denies that anyone infallibly and inerrant remembers them after the death of the last apostle.

This is the Roman Catholic view. It is also the view point of cults which say in effect that their prophet (ess) has spoken for God, and those works and papers produced are equally as important as is Scripture. For example, that is one reason why the Mormons say that they wholly believe the Bible, but add "as long as it it is interpreted by the other "holy books of Mormonism". In doing that sort of stuff, they are lying through their teeth, but that is a different issue for a different forum.

To say that we "use scripture as a common source of information" is insufficient. That may or may not be the common basis that we have. Mormons use scripture as a source of information alongside their book of Mormon. I am not saying your a Mormon, but it illustrates very different ways in which we look at the authority of scripture.

Perspicuity of the Scriptures assumes that the Bible is clear and true on whatever it speaks. Many years ago there were scorners of Scripture who believed that the Bible taught a flat earth because some of its learned clergy said so. I forget which Psalm it is, but it mentions that Earth is an "orb" or "sphere". The scorners did not go away, they just switched targets.

The Bible is neither a biology book nor an astronomy book. Yet it assumes that every life form is designed as a special, and divine creation by God. Likewise, it does not mention that there are now 8, and not 9 planets in our solar system because poor Pluto was recently downgraded into a "planet-ette" by some smart scientists.

Nor is the Bible a history book, as some may believe. Instead, it is a record of His dealing with the people of His covenant because He is a covenant-keeping God; but because it is persipacious, it is correct when it mentions the once scoffed-at Assyrians, or the Amalekites.

So lets just assume that I made wrong statements about two heretics, Marcion and Origen. What is the importance of those assumed incorrect statements? Would that mean to you that the doctrine of perspicuity is wrong?

But several things began to happen that promoted the formation of the New Testament canon. Enns (pg 171) summarizes these:

(1) Spurious writings as well as attacks on genuine writings were a factor. Marcion, for example, rejected the Old Testament and New Testament writings apart from the Pauline letters (he altered Luke’s gospel to suit his doctrine).
(2) The content of the New Testament writings testified to their authenticity and they naturally were collected, being recognized as canonical.
(3) Apostolic writings were used in public worship, hence, it was necessary to determine which of those writings were canonical.
(4) Ultimately, the edict by Emperor Diocletian in A.D. 303, demanding that all sacred books be burned, resulted in the New Testament collection.Enns pg 171
​

FROM J. Hampton Keathley III, Th.M. https://bible.org/seriespage/bible-holy-canon-scripture

From what is in red in statement 4, it is NOT wrong to state that PRIOR the year 300 the Scriptures we now have are recognized to be codified.

 

[Sparkey]

Thread has been moved into the "Ye Old Apologetics & Theology" forum.
Reminder: No Ad Hominem here either.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[dadof10]

It is clear in its essentual matters.

Hi, Mondar, long time. I have not read the whole thread, so this may have already been addressed.

The word "essentials" of the faith has always bothered me. I hear it from Hank Hanegraaff and James White when defending "sola-scriptura" or their variation of it. Although I listen to the "Bible Answer Man" and tapes (that's right, cassettes) of James White and others from AOM, I have never gotten an adequate answer to the question of what exactly they think are essentials of the faith. It seems to me that if a doctrine divides one group from another, it is, by definition, essential. Essential to unity, at the very least.

Take the doctrine of OSAS, as it's the most obvious example. Half of "born again Christians" say "yea", the other half say "nay". Certainly you would consider this doctrine an "essential", yet Christianity is truly divided over it, and therefore Scripture is not "clear" on this subject.

So, how would you define the "essentials of the faith"? I don't really need a laundry list of doctrine, but some kind of definition that takes into consideration that something can be an essential tenet of Christianity, yet be highly divisive.

 

[dadof10]

The doctrine of sola scriptura does not deny the authority of the verbal messages of prophets and apostles. It denies that anyone infallibly and inerrant remembers them after the death of the last apostle.

This is the Roman Catholic view.

No, it's not. if you would like to IM me I would be happy to point you to what the "Roman Catholic" Church does teach on this subject.

 

[By Grace]

I know that I am not Mondar, and I do not speak for him, but your qs are good, so I add my two cents.

Hi, Mondar, long time. I have not read the whole thread, so this may have already been addressed.

The word "essentials" of the faith has always bothered me. I hear it from Hank Hanegraaff and James White when defending "sola-scriptura" or their variation of it. Although I listen to the "Bible Answer Man" and tapes (that's right, cassettes) of James White and others from AOM, I have never gotten an adequate answer to the question of what exactly they think are essentials of the faith. It seems to me that if a doctrine divides one group from another, it is, by definition, essential. Essential to unity, at the very least.

You are making the case for propositional truth, here DoT

Take the doctrine of OSAS, as it's the most obvious example. Half of "born again Christians" say "yea", the other half say "nay". Certainly you would consider this doctrine an "essential", yet Christianity is truly divided over it, and therefore Scripture is not "clear" on this subject.

I recon that OSAS is mostly an in-house debate. It is one group of saved people telling another group of saved people how God does the saving. Therefore OSAS is not essential

So, how would you define the "essentials of the faith"? I don't really need a laundry list of doctrine, but some kind of definition that takes into consideration that something can be an essential tenet of Christianity, yet be highly divisive.

IMO the nature and the extent of the Atonement would be one,and the Trinity another. Plus I would include the twelve propositions of the Apostle's Creed

 

[dadof10]

I know that I am not Mondar, and I do not speak for him, but your qs are good, so I add my two cents.


You are making the case for propositional truth, here DoT

Do you disagree with my proposition? That if a doctrine divides one group from another, it is, by definition, essential?

I recon that OSAS is mostly an in-house debate. It is one group of saved people telling another group of saved people how God does the saving. Therefore OSAS is not essential

Really? That's it, huh? I have seen knock-down-drag-outs over this issue. In fact, you have been involved (as have I ) in those battles. I have seen entire GROUPS of Christians telling others that they are NOT SAVED because they hold to "works salvation". A doctrinal division as vitriolic as this is NOT ESSENTIAL??? Then why all the fighting? Obviously someone thinks it's essential, otherwise there would be no argument, or at least not an argument of this magnitude.

IMO the nature and the extent of the Atonement would be one,and the Trinity another. Plus I would include the twelve propositions of the Apostle's Creed

There are huge disagreements raging now, as there have been for 500 years, about the "nature of the Atonement". Were the sins of humanity "put on" Jesus so He "became sin"? Did the Father truly abandon Jesus on the cross? And the biggie, is the Atonement for ALL mankind or only for "the elect"? This is one of the main issues that separates Calvinists from Lutherans, is it not? Surely, you must see that this is not settled within Christianity, and that it divides HUGE groups of people?

I think you are misunderstanding me. It has been said, as long as I have been listening to Reformed apologists, that "we AGREE on the essentials". I can't remember whether you are Reformed or not, but the two men I mentioned in my last post are, as is Mondar. This is one of their defenses for the doctrine of sola-scriptura, that all Christianity agrees on the essentials, and it's only on the non-essentials where there is disagreement. I have always thought this was bunk because the mere fact there is a division over a doctrine tells me it MUST BE ESSENTIAL, otherwise why divide over it? Maybe their definition of "essential" is different from mine, IDK.

I can think of relatively few doctrines where ALL denominations that call themselves "Christian" agree. That God is One, is one. That Jesus is His Son is another. That He was born of a virgin is another. In fact, as you said above, most of the BASICS of the Apostles Creed is agreed upon by MOST of Christianity. It's when you start asking "what do you mean by that", where the divisions start.

 

[By Grace]

Do you disagree with my proposition? That if a doctrine divides one group from another, it is, by definition, essential?

No, as you have written it. It is a very W I D E definition.

Really? That's it, huh? I have seen knock-down-drag-outs over this issue. In fact, you have been involved (as have I ) in those battles

.
I will not deny that I have posted there, but it is only to interject something, and NOT to add fuel to the fire.

I have seen entire GROUPS of Christians telling others that they are NOT SAVED because they hold to "works salvation"

Scripture is abundantly clear about salvation being an act of grace by God, (hence my user name) and not of works. For example

Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour

Ephesians 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.​

There are others, but it is the perspicuity of Scripture that permits us to look at all those verses, and the "Arminian" verses and realize that since they come from the same God, and He is not schizophrenic, He did not contradict Himself.

Nor in the same manner did He permit humanity to go contrary to His eternal Decrees, and we alone are responsible for the choices that we make.

A doctrinal division as vitriolic as this is NOT ESSENTIAL??? Then why all the fighting? Obviously someone thinks it's essential, otherwise there would be no argument, or at least not an argument of this magnitude.

Volume is not a proper measure of vitality. I cannot state why others choose to join in the fray--it is essentially an in-house argument, but I can state that in my many years on earth, the discussion has never produced any light, excepting that there is a rancid smoke that is not a sweet smell to God in the hearts of those combatants. Most important is that NO ONE IS SAVED when people are yelling at each other.

There are huge disagreements raging now, as there have been for 500 years, about the "nature of the Atonement".

There are cult members on this board who essentially say that Jesus has not done enough on the cross, and they have to do works of arrogation (merit) in order to be fully saved. Those people are the ones who I speak about the sufficiency of Jesus Christ, because if they are relying on their own merit, by definition, they are NOT saved.

<SNIP>

I can think of relatively few doctrines where ALL denominations that call themselves "Christian" agree. That God is One, is one. That Jesus is His Son is another. That He was born of a virgin is another. In fact, as you said above, most of the BASICS of the Apostles Creed is agreed upon by MOST of Christianity. It's when you start asking "what do you mean by that", where the divisions start.

In EVERY historically orthodox church, the 12 points of the Apostle's Creed form the basis of unity. IMHO as long as we can agree to those things, there is a basis for community, but the cults to which I referenced above do not accept the 12 points of the Apostle's Creed. Therefore while there may be individual members who are saved by grace in those cults, the majority of them are relying to their works-based salvation, such as doing good, following ordinances, wearing proper undies, following a vegetarian diet, or worshiping on Saturday, and condemning those who worship on Sunday.

You will notice that I cut the discussion short, and that is because I do not want to derail the thread entirely by explaining about Calvinism or Arminianism. However, you did raise some points, which I wanted to touch on before I addressed the perspicuity of Scripture, and perhaps it may be best if you wanted to continue the discussion, that we do it via the messaging function here.

So to tie this all together, it is my opinion that those who are most vociferous in their objections to the insignificant differences between the Calvinists and the Arminians is that they lack the understanding of the perspicuity or clearness of Scripture. If that were the case, they would not be lobbing verbal (or written) hand grenades at others. God is not glorified when brothers declare war on each other.

OTOH, there are many passages that enjoin us to "be ready in season and out of season to give a reason for our faith:. Jude also commands us to"earnestly contend for the faith" (vs3) but that does NOT mean to do so in a contentious manner.

So I hope I have answered your questions adequately, and if you wish to pursue the derailing matter further, I will be happy to oblige, but in a PM, OK?

 

[dadof10]

No, as you have written it. It is a very W I D E definition.

Maybe we have different definitions of "essential" then. To me, it means important enough that my belief system is incomplete without it.
.

I will not deny that I have posted there, but it is only to interject something, and NOT to add fuel to the fire.

Yeah, OK. Me either. ;)

Scripture is abundantly clear about salvation being an act of grace by God, (hence my user name) and not of works. For example

Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour

Ephesians 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.​

There are others, but it is the perspicuity of Scripture that permits us to look at all those verses, and the "Arminian" verses and realize that since they come from the same God, and He is not schizophrenic, He did not contradict Himself.

Nor in the same manner did He permit humanity to go contrary to His eternal Decrees, and we alone are responsible for the choices that we make.

You didn't answer the question. Do you think this is an "essential" issue? Do you have a problem worshiping with "Arminians"? Do you think that their belief concerning OSAS is just an "in house" debate and not a harmful doctrine that leads to hell?

Volume is not a proper measure of vitality. I cannot state why others choose to join in the fray--it is essentially an in-house argument, but I can state that in my many years on earth, the discussion has never produced any light, excepting that there is a rancid smoke that is not a sweet smell to God in the hearts of those combatants. Most important is that NO ONE IS SAVED when people are yelling at each other.

Again, not the point. If a doctrine is important enough to cause this much division and "yelling" isn't it, by definition, essential?

There are cult members on this board who essentially say that Jesus has not done enough on the cross, and they have to do works of arrogation (merit) in order to be fully saved. Those people are the ones who I speak about the sufficiency of Jesus Christ, because if they are relying on their own merit, by definition, they are NOT saved.

<SNIP>

OK, so to believe in the doctrine of OSAS IS essential for eternal life, in your opinion?

In EVERY historically orthodox church, the 12 points of the Apostle's Creed form the basis of unity. IMHO as long as we can agree to those things, there is a basis for community,

There is nothing in the Apostles Creed about OSAS. You believe that to reject this doctrine is to be "NOT saved". You seem to be saying, then that rejection of OSAS can be part of the "historically orthodox church" even though to hold it leads to hell.

but the cults to which I referenced above do not accept the 12 points of the Apostle's Creed.

It's not only the "cults" that don't hold your view. As I said above, it starts getting divisive when we ask "what do you mean by that"

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

Made in how many days? Did He use evolution and create over millions of years or did He create in 6 revolutions of the earth? Is Genesis allegorical or literal?
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

What do you mean by "Lord"? Is Jesus God?

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

"Descended into Hell???" Did He actually go into Hell? What for?
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

Are we in these times NOW? Pre, mid or post?
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

The saints here on earth too, or just those in Heaven?
10. The forgiveness of sins:

How?
1l. The resurrection of the body:

How and when?

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

As you can see, there are even divisions over the Apostles Creed. The method is the problem. There is no final authority.

Therefore while there may be individual members who are saved by grace in those cults, the majority of them are relying to their works-based salvation, such as doing good, following ordinances, wearing proper undies, following a vegetarian diet, or worshiping on Saturday, and condemning those who worship on Sunday.

You will notice that I cut the discussion short, and that is because I do not want to derail the thread entirely by explaining about Calvinism or Arminianism. However, you did raise some points, which I wanted to touch on before I addressed the perspicuity of Scripture, and perhaps it may be best if you wanted to continue the discussion, that we do it via the messaging function here.

So to tie this all together, it is my opinion that those who are most vociferous in their objections to the insignificant differences between the Calvinists and the Arminians is that they lack the understanding of the perspicuity or clearness of Scripture.

Insignificant differences? You just said that to reject OSAS (like the "Arminians" do) is to be "NOT saved". This is insignificant to you? It's amazing that people will argue over a point of doctrine, considering it so vitally important that the eternal soul is jeopardized by their acceptance or rejection of it, yet when discussed in the context of sola-scriptura, all of a sudden it's whitewashed to be "insignificant". Make up your mind. Will rejection of OSAS effect the soul or is it merely an "insignificant difference"?

If that were the case, they would not be lobbing verbal (or written) hand grenades at others. God is not glorified when brothers declare war on each other.

God is not glorified when people who claim to be His followers accept heretical doctrine and call it "insignificant" either.

OTOH, there are many passages that enjoin us to "be ready in season and out of season to give a reason for our faith:. Jude also commands us to"earnestly contend for the faith" (vs3) but that does NOT mean to do so in a contentious manner.

Again, not the point. That you keep mentioning contentiousness shows that the doctrines being contested are, in some peoples opinions, essential, otherwise why fight?

 

[By Grace]

Maybe we have different definitions of "essential" then.

What exactly do you wish to discuss? The thread title is "the perspicuity of Scripture", which has then morphed into "Sola Scriptura"

The reply you posted contain these different, and irrelevant subjects to the issue of "Sola Scriptura:

Arminians
my belief system
OSAS
doctrine that leads to hell
worshiping
"yelling"
OSAS (twice again)
historically orthodox church
creation
the "rapture"
resurrection of the dead

then you are picking apart the Apostle's Creed

To me, it means important enough that my belief system is incomplete without it.

I have posted, and explained what I believe to be essential because it is almost universally accepted by the Church

So in all sincerity, I have to ask you if you want to follow the OP, or do something else?

 

[dadof10]

What exactly do you wish to discuss? The thread title is "the perspicuity of Scripture", which has then morphed into "Sola Scriptura"

The reply you posted contain these different, and irrelevant subjects to the issue of "Sola Scriptura:

Arminians
my belief system
OSAS
doctrine that leads to hell
worshiping
"yelling"
OSAS (twice again)
historically orthodox church
creation
the "rapture"
resurrection of the dead

I want to discuss, and have been discussing, the fact that people who use Scripture alone to define doctrine can't agree on how to interpret it. They can't even agree on what "essential doctrine" is. They even interpret the Creed differently.

I have been discussing the FACT that if a doctrine divides one group of well meaning Christians from another, this doctrine is, by definition, ESSENTIAL. I have been discussing my opinion that it is illogical when a Reformed apologist says "we agree on the essentials" when trying to defend sola-scriptura, then turns around and makes the case that this "non-essential" doctrine is a matter of life and death, that our eternal soul could be lost if it is rejected. In my example of OSAS you did this exact thing. You claimed that it was not essential (because it's not mentioned in the Creed), yet to reject it is to reject Grace in favor of "works salvation", and therefore possibly wind up "NOT saved". You can't have it both ways, it can't be an "insignificant difference" on one hand and effect our eternal salvation on the other, unless you want to make the case that salvation is insignificant.

The things in your list above are all EXAMPLES of this nonsense, which I used to prove my point. Since you have no reply, I'll assume I have.

then you are picking apart the Apostle's Creed

I have posted, and explained what I believe to be essential because it is almost universally accepted by the Church

Please... You brought up the apostles Creed. Why? To give an EXAMPLE of unity, or to list "irrelevant subjects"? You attempted to make the case that ALL Christians agree on the points of doctrine contained in the Creed. My point is, they do not, because the METHOD IS WRONG. You are PERSONALLY INTERPRETING the Creed and using your fallible interpretation to set doctrine, like you do with Scripture. My point is, that Christianity is divided even over a statement as simple as " I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth". Once you start asking questions, like how did He create, division ensues because the only authority you have is your own fallible interpretation, as do those that disagree with you. We can't even get past the first "essential" doctrine without division.

So in all sincerity, I have to ask you if you want to follow the OP, or do something else?

I am following the OP. There is no such thing as perspicuity of Scripture. If there were, there would be no HONEST disagreements among Christians. The only time a person would divide from the status-quo is if someone had ulterior motives. I don't think there are very many who "break off' over money or power. Most of the time the Pastor leaves over honest interpretation issues and starts his own church because he honestly thinks he's following orthodoxy. The problem is, his method is wrong. Scripture was never meant to be a catechism and the Holy Spirit obviously doesn't guide people to thousands of contradicting doctrines. The Biblical way to discern orthodoxy is by Church councils, as the Church did in Acts 15, not by private interpretation of Scripture.

 

[By Grace]

PART 1 of 2

I want to discuss, and have been discussing, the fact that people who use Scripture alone to define doctrine can't agree on how to interpret it. They can't even agree on what "essential doctrine" is. They even interpret the Creed differently.

I have been discussing the FACT that if a doctrine divides one group of well meaning Christians from another, this doctrine is, by definition, ESSENTIAL. I have been discussing my opinion that it is illogical when a Reformed apologist says "we agree on the essentials" when trying to defend sola-scriptura, then turns around and makes the case that this "non-essential" doctrine is a matter of life and death, that our eternal soul could be lost if it is rejected. In my example of OSAS you did this exact thing. You claimed that it was not essential (because it's not mentioned in the Creed), yet to reject it is to reject Grace in favor of "works salvation", and therefore possibly wind up "NOT saved". You can't have it both ways, it can't be an "insignificant difference" on one hand and effect our eternal salvation on the other, unless you want to make the case that salvation is insignificant.

The things in your list above are all EXAMPLES of this nonsense, which I used to prove my point. Since you have no reply, I'll assume I have.

Please... You brought up the apostles Creed. Why? To give an EXAMPLE of unity, or to list "irrelevant subjects"?

YOU asked a question, and I expressed my opinion. Do you recall this?S

Dad pf Ten posted, how would you define the "essentials of the faith"? I don't really need a laundry list of doctrine, but some kind of definition that takes into consideration that something can be an essential tenet of Christianity, yet be highly divisive.

IMO the nature and the extent of the Atonement would be one,and the Trinity another. Plus I would include the twelve propositions of the Apostle's Creed

So I gave you my opinion. You are free to acceept that, pt to reject it, but you are not free to dis the Apostle's Creed. That is because to go against it, as you did in your reply to me is to go against the official teachings of the RC church, as expressed in their official publication, the Catholic Encyclopedia.

it was formerly learnt in Latin. As a result of this intimate association with the liturgy and teaching of the Church, the Apostles' Creed has always been held to have the authority of an ex cathedra utterance. It is commonly taught that all points of doctrine contained in it are part of the Catholic Faith, and cannot be called in question under pain of heresy (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, II-II:1:9). Hence Catholics have generally been content to accept the Creed in the form, and in the sense, in which it has been authoritatively expounded by the living voice of the Church. For the Protestants who accept it only in so far as it represents the evangelical teaching of the Apostolic Age, it became a matter of supreme importance to investigate its original form and meaning. This explains the preponderating amount of research devoted to this subject by Protestant scholars as compared with the contributions of their Catholic rivals.
​

You attempted to make the case that ALL Christians agree on the points of doctrine contained in the Creed.

Please quote me correctly, or not at all

My point is, they do not, because the METHOD IS WRONG. You are PERSONALLY INTERPRETING the Creed and using your fallible interpretation to set doctrine, like you do with Scripture. My point is, that Christianity is divided even over a statement as simple as " I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth". Once you start asking questions, like how did He create, division ensues because the only authority you have is your own fallible interpretation, as do those that disagree with you. We can't even get past the first "essential" doctrine without division.

Your point actually is that you believe the Roman Catholic Church to be wrong because you are criticizing the things, which they hold as official teachings of the RCC.

 

[By Grace]

PART 2 of 2

I am following the OP. There is no such thing as perspicuity of Scripture. If there were, there would be no HONEST disagreements among Christians. The only time a person would divide from the status-quo is if someone had ulterior motives. I don't think there are very many who "break off' over money or power. Most of the time the Pastor leaves over honest interpretation issues and starts his own church because he honestly thinks he's following orthodoxy. The problem is, his method is wrong. Scripture was never meant to be a catechism and the Holy Spirit obviously doesn't guide people to thousands of contradicting doctrines. The Biblical way to discern orthodoxy is by Church councils, as the Church did in Acts 15, not by private interpretation of Scripture.

I have no idea if you are attempting to argue for yourself, or for what you believe is the Catholic belief, but i urge you to read thes, from the Catholic Encyclopedia

The writer of 2 Chronicles 30:5, 18, refers to prescriptions of the Law by the formula "as it is written", which is rendered by the Septuagint translators kata ten graphen; para ten graphen, "according to Scripture". The same expression is found in Ezra 3:4 and Nehemiah 8:15; here we have the beginning of the later form of appeal to the authority of the inspired books gegraptai (Matthew 4:4, 6, 10; 21:13; etc.), or kathos gegraptai (Romans 1:11; 2:24, etc.), "it is written", "as it is written".

As the verb graphein was thus employed to denote passages of the sacred writings, so the corresponding noun he graphe gradually came to signify what is pre-eminently the writing, or the inspired writing…



In the language of Christ and the Apostles the expression "scripture" or "scriptures" denotes the sacred books of the Jews. The New Testament uses the expressions in this sense about fifty times; but they occur more frequently in the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles than in the synoptic Gospels. At times, the contents of Scripture are indicated more accurately as comprising the Law and the Prophets (Romans 3:21; Acts 28:23), or the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). The Apostle St. Peter extends the designation Scripture also to tas loipas graphas (2 Peter 3:16), denoting the Pauline Epistles; St. Paul (1 Timothy 5:18) seems to refer by the same expression to both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7….

Whether the terms graphe, graphai, and their synonymous expressions to biblion (Nehemiah 8:8), ta biblia (Daniel 9:2), kephalis bibliou (Psalm 39:8), he iera biblos (2 Maccabees 8:23), ta biblia ta hagia (1 Maccabees 12:9), ta iera grammata (2 Timothy 3:15) refer to particular writings or to a collection of books, they at least show the existence of a number of written documents the authority of which was generally accepted as supreme. The nature of this authority may be inferred from a number of other passages. According to Deuteronomy 31:9-13,…

THE NATURE OF SCRIPTURE

According to I Mach., i, 57-59, Antiochus commanded the Books of the Law of the Lord to be burned and their retainers to slain. We learn from II Mach., ii, 13, that at the time of Nehemias there existed a collection of books containing historical, prophetical, and psalmodic writings; since the collection is represented as uniform, and since the portions were considered as certainly of Divine authority, we may infer that this characteristic was ascribed to all, at least in some degree. Coming down to the time of Christ, .we find that Flavius Josephus attributes to the twenty-two protocanonical books of the Old Testament Divine authority, maintaining that they had been written under Divine inspiration and that they contain God's teachings (Contra Appion., I, vi-viii). The Hellenist Philo too is acquainted with the three parts of the sacred Jewish books to which he ascribes an irrefragable authority, because they contain God's oracles, through of the instrumentality of the sacred writers
("De vit. Mosis", pp. 469, 658 sq.; "De monarchia", p. 564).


​

If you look at the stuff I made blue bold, you find that there is congruence with what I said, and the official teachings of the RCC church

Most interesting are these phrases, " The Hellenist Philo too is acquainted with the three parts of the sacred Jewish books to which he ascribes an irrefragable authority, because they contain God's oracles, through of the instrumentality of the sacred writers"

and "and since the portions were considered as certainly of Divine authority, we may infer that this characteristic was ascribed to all, at least in some degree "

Whether or not you believe it, or not, the official position of the RCC church, as expressed in this official encyclopedia is that the Scriptures are wholly inspired of God, using humand to write what God told them to write. Since that is the case, it is no stretch of the imagination to say that Paul calls Scripture God-breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16, that the true nature of Scripture is an accurate reflection of the nature of God, put into writing.

So while the RCC church does not use the term, "perspecuity of Scripture", their emphasis surely gives rise to the fact that they believe that concept. Otherwise, they would not say that the "books of the Old Testament Divine authority, maintaining that they had been written under Divine inspiration and that they contain God's teachings " In other words, as God is, so is his Bible.

 

[reba]

Discussion of Catholic doctrine is limited and will only be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is may be viewed as ‘Catholic’ in nature.

 

[By Grace]

Discussion of Catholic doctrine is limited and will only be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is may be viewed as ‘Catholic’ in nature.

Therefore, we move back to the topic of the thread:

mondar said: ↑
Scriptures can be misunderstood, it can be misused, but the important parts are clear enough for the simple to grasp, understand, and live by. It is clear in its essentual matters. On the other hand, Scriptures is deep enough for readers of the highest intellectual ability to search it and recognize deeper and greater truths.

Sparrowhawke said: ↑I understand the OP to be saying that although every essential teaching is clear there remains room even for those who possess the highest intellect to be challenged and that they too need to call unto God for understanding. Kindly correct me if I'm wrong, mondar - but that's the way I read your intent.

mondar said: ↑Yes, sorry for not being here. You understood correctly. My hat is off to you. Salute!

More than this, the doctrine of the perpicuity of scriptures does not men all men will understand everything. Neither does it mean that there is no need for the illuminating power of the HS.

The history of the debate over Perspicuity was mainly from the days of the Reformation. On the one side were the Roman Catholics who argue that the scriptures cannot be understood without the infallible magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church. On the other side were the Reformers who said that it is possible to understand the scriptures without the magesterium.

The doctrine does assume sola scritura also.

This doctrine is assumed by anyone quoting scriptures. Why would you think you can possibly understand the scriptures without the magesterium, or some illuminated group only has the authority to dictate what the scriptures mean? The doctrine does not mean that many will not misunderstand the scriptures.[

/QUOTE]

Now we can officially place the genesis of the derail upon mondar!

I went to an unpublished book I wrote in order to help some here see the wonders of the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture. The chapter from where it comes is about using Scripture as the best tool for apologetics.

Either God has spoken, and has not stuttered, or else he has stuttered. If he has stuttered, then where does the truth end, and the stuttering begin? Thus, apologetics is an either/or proposition.

That is why non-contradiction is so important. One view [the Neo-Orthodox view of Scripture] says God has slipped up, and that is the only way that I can explain it. The other view [Evangelical] says God has not slipped up and my understanding is not able to explain it; it is nevertheless true. All I need to do is state clearly what God has stated. The results are not my responsibility; they are God’s. All I am responsible for is to faithfully proclaim what is true.
​

Here is another definition from CARM

Sola Scriptura is the teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments are the final authority in all that they address (1 Cor. 4:6) and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition is judged by Scriptures. Sola Scriptura does not negate past councils or traditions. Instead, it is above them and they are to be judged by scripture.

​

Perspicuity of the Scriptures assumes that the Bible is clear and true on whatever it speaks. Many years ago there were scorners of Scripture who believed that the Bible taught a flat earth because some of its learned clergy said so. I forget which Psalm it is, but it mentions that Earth is an "orb" or "sphere". The scorners did not go away, they just switched targets.

The Bible is neither a biology book nor an astronomy book. Yet it assumes that every life form is designed as a special, and divine creation by God. Likewise, it does not mention that there are now 8, and not 9 planets in our solar system because poor Pluto was recently downgraded into a "planet-ette" by some smart scientists.

Nor is the Bible a history book, as some may believe. Instead, it is a record of His dealing with the people of His covenant because He is a covenant-keeping God; but because it is persipacious, it is correct when it mentions the once scoffed-at Assyrians, or the Amalekites.

But several things began to happen that promoted the formation of the New Testament canon. Enns (pg 171) summarizes these:

(1) Spurious writings as well as attacks on genuine writings were a factor. Marcion, for example, rejected the Old Testament and New Testament writings apart from the Pauline letters (he altered Luke’s gospel to suit his doctrine).
(2) The content of the New Testament writings testified to their authenticity and they naturally were collected, being recognized as canonical.
(3) Apostolic writings were used in public worship, hence, it was necessary to determine which of those writings were canonical.
(4) Ultimately, the edict by Emperor Diocletian in A.D. 303, demanding that all sacred books be burned, resulted in the New Testament collection.Enns pg 171​

FROM J. Hampton Keathley III, Th.M. https://bible.org/seriespage/bible-holy-canon-scripture

It is not wrong to state that PRIOR the year 300 the Scriptures we now have are recognized to be codified.

 

[dadof10]

PART 1 of 2



I have been discussing the FACT that if a doctrine divides one group of well meaning Christians from another, this doctrine is, by definition, ESSENTIAL. I have been discussing my opinion that it is illogical when a Reformed apologist says "we agree on the essentials" when trying to defend sola-scriptura, then turns around and makes the case that this "non-essential" doctrine is a matter of life and death, that our eternal soul could be lost if it is rejected. In my example of OSAS you did this exact thing. You claimed that it was not essential (because it's not mentioned in the Creed), yet to reject it is to reject Grace in favor of "works salvation", and therefore possibly wind up "NOT saved". You can't have it both ways, it can't be an "insignificant difference" on one hand and effect our eternal salvation on the other, unless you want to make the case that salvation is insignificant.

The things in your list above are all EXAMPLES of this nonsense, which I used to prove my point. Since you have no reply, I'll assume I have.




YOU asked a question, and I expressed my opinion. Do you recall this?S

So I gave you my opinion. You are free to acceept that, pt to reject it, but you are not free to dis the Apostle's Creed.

This is a typical response for someone whose position has been totally debunked. "Dis the apostles Creed?" Please quote my words that show any kind of disrespect to the Creed. As you have been told above TWICE in words anyone can understand, it's when you ask "what do you mean by that" where the Apostles Creed (which you called "essential") gets DIVISIVE so, ESSENTIAL DOCTRINE CAN AND IS DIVISIVE. Therefore (and here, again is the point), the view that "we agree on the ESSENTIALS" is foolishness.

That is because to go against it, as you did in your reply to me is to go against the official teachings of the RC church, as expressed in their official publication, the Catholic Encyclopedia.

it was formerly learnt in Latin. As a result of this intimate association with the liturgy and teaching of the Church, the Apostles' Creed has always been held to have the authority of an ex cathedra utterance. It is commonly taught that all points of doctrine contained in it are part of the Catholic Faith, and cannot be called in question under pain of heresy (St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, II-II:1:9). Hence Catholics have generally been content to accept the Creed in the form, and in the sense, in which it has been authoritatively expounded by the living voice of the Church. For the Protestants who accept it only in so far as it represents the evangelical teaching of the Apostolic Age, it became a matter of supreme importance to investigate its original form and meaning. This explains the preponderating amount of research devoted to this subject by Protestant scholars as compared with the contributions of their Catholic rivals.
​

Please quote me correctly, or not at all



Your point actually is that you believe the Roman Catholic Church to be wrong because you are criticizing the things, which they hold as official teachings of the RCC.

When did I "go against" the Creed? Please quote my words.

 

[dadof10]

PART 2 of 2



I have no idea if you are attempting to argue for yourself, or for what you believe is the Catholic belief, but i urge you to read thes, from the Catholic Encyclopedia

The writer of 2 Chronicles 30:5, 18, refers to prescriptions of the Law by the formula "as it is written", which is rendered by the Septuagint translators kata ten graphen; para ten graphen, "according to Scripture". The same expression is found in Ezra 3:4 and Nehemiah 8:15; here we have the beginning of the later form of appeal to the authority of the inspired books gegraptai (Matthew 4:4, 6, 10; 21:13; etc.), or kathos gegraptai (Romans 1:11; 2:24, etc.), "it is written", "as it is written".

As the verb graphein was thus employed to denote passages of the sacred writings, so the corresponding noun he graphe gradually came to signify what is pre-eminently the writing, or the inspired writing…



In the language of Christ and the Apostles the expression "scripture" or "scriptures" denotes the sacred books of the Jews. The New Testament uses the expressions in this sense about fifty times; but they occur more frequently in the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles than in the synoptic Gospels. At times, the contents of Scripture are indicated more accurately as comprising the Law and the Prophets (Romans 3:21; Acts 28:23), or the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). The Apostle St. Peter extends the designation Scripture also to tas loipas graphas (2 Peter 3:16), denoting the Pauline Epistles; St. Paul (1 Timothy 5:18) seems to refer by the same expression to both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7….

Whether the terms graphe, graphai, and their synonymous expressions to biblion (Nehemiah 8:8), ta biblia (Daniel 9:2), kephalis bibliou (Psalm 39:8), he iera biblos (2 Maccabees 8:23), ta biblia ta hagia (1 Maccabees 12:9), ta iera grammata (2 Timothy 3:15) refer to particular writings or to a collection of books, they at least show the existence of a number of written documents the authority of which was generally accepted as supreme. The nature of this authority may be inferred from a number of other passages. According to Deuteronomy 31:9-13,…

THE NATURE OF SCRIPTURE

According to I Mach., i, 57-59, Antiochus commanded the Books of the Law of the Lord to be burned and their retainers to slain. We learn from II Mach., ii, 13, that at the time of Nehemias there existed a collection of books containing historical, prophetical, and psalmodic writings; since the collection is represented as uniform, and since the portions were considered as certainly of Divine authority, we may infer that this characteristic was ascribed to all, at least in some degree. Coming down to the time of Christ, .we find that Flavius Josephus attributes to the twenty-two protocanonical books of the Old Testament Divine authority, maintaining that they had been written under Divine inspiration and that they contain God's teachings (Contra Appion., I, vi-viii). The Hellenist Philo too is acquainted with the three parts of the sacred Jewish books to which he ascribes an irrefragable authority, because they contain God's oracles, through of the instrumentality of the sacred writers
("De vit. Mosis", pp. 469, 658 sq.; "De monarchia", p. 564).

​

If you look at the stuff I made blue bold, you find that there is congruence with what I said, and the official teachings of the RCC church

Most interesting are these phrases, " The Hellenist Philo too is acquainted with the three parts of the sacred Jewish books to which he ascribes an irrefragable authority, because they contain God's oracles, through of the instrumentality of the sacred writers"

and "and since the portions were considered as certainly of Divine authority, we may infer that this characteristic was ascribed to all, at least in some degree "

Whether or not you believe it, or not, the official position of the RCC church, as expressed in this official encyclopedia is that the Scriptures are wholly inspired of God, using humand to write what God told them to write. Since that is the case, it is no stretch of the imagination to say that Paul calls Scripture God-breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16, that the true nature of Scripture is an accurate reflection of the nature of God, put into writing.

So while the RCC church does not use the term, "perspecuity of Scripture", their emphasis surely gives rise to the fact that they believe that concept. Otherwise, they would not say that the "books of the Old Testament Divine authority, maintaining that they had been written under Divine inspiration and that they contain God's teachings " In other words, as God is, so is his Bible.

Well, congratulations. You managed to distract from all the points you couldn't respond to by bringing up the Catholic bugaboo. If you can't respond to MY OWN PERSONAL THEOLOGY, just bring up Catholic doctrine and there will certainly be a warning from the mods following. I brought up Catholic teaching as many times as I "dissed" the Creed, Exactly zero. This tactic is shameful and, sadly, typical.

 

[By Grace]

...

This thread is about the perspicuity of Scripture, not the Apostles Creed, nor Roman Catholic theology nor your opinion of the Apostle's Creed

Please honor the wishes of the moderators and staff, and heed this warning:
Discussion of Catholic doctrine is limited and will only be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is may be viewed as ‘Catholic’ in nature.

 

[By Grace]

.....l.

Welcome to my ignore list.