The principle is intuitively obvious. We don't need an infallible authority to tell us what every verse means. You argue that the whole Bible is murky and needs a church to interpret it - especially since the church has officially interpreted only very limited parts of it.
I never said the whole Bible was murky. I just said the principle was flawed. The Scriptures I posted above I do see as clear, so it should be obvious that I don't view the whole Bible as murky. I just know that if you want to play the game of interpreting so called "clear" scripture with the "unclear" ones then you would have to leave whatever Prespyterian church you go to, for you can't agree with me when it comes to those scriptures I posted above and still remain a Prespyterian/calvinist in good standing.
You can't. It's that simple.
Jesus stepped into a boat.
Where is the ambiguity?
I can't speak for the rest of humanity(6 billion people)...as if I can really know the minds of all humans with 100% absolute certainty, and as if all humans have the same level of comprehension, in every age and stages of life.
So no, I will not speak for all humans, and no, I refuse to use "universal absolute" statements, instead I would like to stick with "partial absolute" statements.......for we know in part, and we will keep learning for all eternity......Lord willing.
You see, not only is there a flaw in the principle we are talking about, there is also a flaw in "inductive logic"......... "empiricism".
But just because there is a flaw in something doesn't mean we can't use it. For I still use the flawed method we are talking about. And I still use the flawed method of "inductive logic".
The only difference is, I am willing to admit their limitations, because they are not perfect systems.....so they must be modified.
Now with that said, I will say that with 100% absolute certainty this passage is clear according to us(you and I). For this is what we can know at this point in time with 100% absolute certainty.
But I will not speak for all of humanity(6 billion people).......for that would be speculating about things we really can not know with full 100% absolute certainty.
The Bible is clear enough that we know what we should do. There are parts that transcend human understanding, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is meaningless unless a priest tells us what it means.
Once again, you are speaking about things you can not really know with full 100% absolute certainty. You say the Bible is clear enough, if that was so, then why are Lutherians and the Reformed divided over certain Biblical interpretations? If what you say is true, then why are Baptists and Prespyterians divided over certain Biblical interpretations? Well ok, maybe the problem is not the Bible....but if this was the case, then you must agree with me, that there seems to be a human element of "subjectivity" involved.
If there wasn't then we should all automatically agree.....because everything is so clear that it is impossible for anyone to disagree.
I'm sorry Truthstalker, but this isn't realistic.
The "clear" passages should always interpret the unclear passages of scripture"
Truthstalker, I can see the pink Elephant in the room, can you? Are you telling me that there is no hint of subjectivity in that principle?
Are you telling me that every passage I think is clear will always be the same passage you think is clear? Is this what you are telling me? If so, then you must leave Prespyterianism because the verses I posted above don't fly with Calvinism, they go against the very grain of your system..........so you can't use those passages as the clear passages to interpret the ""unclear"" ones. You can't!
You Can't agree with me that those passages should be used as the clear ones to interprete the unclear "calvinistic" proof texts.
So will you now admit to yourself that there is "subjectivity" involved? If you are truely a "STALKER" of "TRUTH", then eventually you must come to terms with this......for this is true.Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner