Just for fun, let's consider the Protestant Hermeneutic:
Now, I suppose that one could allege that Scripture does not interpret Scripture. But such an allegation would contradict the teaching of 2 Timothy 3: 16-17:
On the basis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then, let's entertain for discussion the Protestant contention that Scripture is essentially perspicuous:
Now, if Scripture is perspicuous, then the Delineation of Doctrine expressed in the Church Creeds is not so much a matter of the development of Doctrine (to use the common Roman expression), as it is the synthesis of Doctrine, already-existing and entirely present in the Scriptures themselves.
For example, if we wanted to promulgate a doctrinal Creed to the following effect:
In order to promulgate this Creed, we should find it necessary to test its Creedal Declarations against all relevant passages of Scripture, to determine whether or not such a Creed faithfully expressed perfect adherence to all relevant Scriptures, and without contradiction of any relevant Scripture.
So, now, let us Test this proposed Creed as to its perfect adherence to and non-contradiction with all relevant passages of Scripture.
The proposed Creed in question may be adjudged as Sound, for it perfectly adheres to all relevant passages of Scripture, and contradicts no relevant passage of Scripture whatsoever.
But is this Creed (which is found nowhere in Scripture in this format) somehow a "development" of Doctrine, as per the common Romanist claim for the alleged "authority" of their Church?? No, we have not "developed" a blessed thing.
Every single Creedal Declaration encompassed herein is already contained in Scripture, entirely perspicuous in every word; we have simply synthesized together the already-existent declarations of Scripture into a unitary, Creedal format. Contra the Roman view of "interpretation", no "development" of Doctrine has occurred at all; only a synthesis of already-existent Scripture into a unitary format.
The reason why the Mormon Creeds (and also the distinctly Romanistic Creeds) are to be rejected by Biblical Christians, is this simple test of Scriptural perspicuity, adherence, and non-contradiction.
The relevant question, however, is will any Unregenerate Men ever Repent and Believe and Confess absent the prior Regeneration of their Spirits?
The Biblical Doctrine of Man is quite clear on the matter:
The Natural Man is evil and spiritually insane in his heart (Ecc 9) and can never perform the good (Jeremiah 13) and only chooses unrighteous choices (Isa 64) and will never come to the Light (John 3) and cannot receive the Spirit (John 14) and never actions righteous choices (Rom 3) and always and without exception wills Evil (Rom 7) and never selects the God-pleasing Choice (Rom 8) and cannot even understand the Gospel (1 Cor 2) and cannot confess Jesus as Lord (1 Cor 12).
Given, then, that this is the state of the unregenerate Man's heart according to every single passage concerning the Biblical Doctrine of Man, his heart must be unilaterally re-engineered by God in order to Repent.
Fortunately, God directs the hearts of Men in whatever direction He wants to turn them. (Proverbs 21:1)
The Reformation Protestant Creeds, are, therefore, to be preferred to the Roman Creeds on such subjects, in that they represent a non-contradictory holistic synthesis of the relevant Scriptural passages on the subject, rather than an UnScriptural "development" of Doctrine which the Roman Church has no Ecclesial Right to "develop".
I am not going to list them again either because I asked the same questions at least 20 times last night and never once got an answer. And woody, don't pretend like you have no idea what I am talking about.
"My hope is built on nothing less / Than Popish Bulls and Vatican Press". :D
Dan
ADJECTIVE: Clearly expressed or presented; easy to understand.
II Peter 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
II Peter 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
<> Do you see the problems you run into here? OP, you make this sort of mistake repeatedly because you think you have authority to decide what the Bible does and doesn't mean. You make this sweeping assertion that the Bible is easy to understand when it clearly isn't. That is why you disagree with Xins, me, restornau et al as to what it does and doesn't mean
Is is only after CENTURIES of Catholic Teaching that Christology was defined. It is only thanks to the Catholic Church - none other - to depend upon for its surety of Doctrine that you able now to engage in Eisegesis and read into Scripture that which is not pellucid.
The first centuries witnessed Innumerable attacks on the Traditon of Christology and the Correct Teaching was developed and taught by ONLY the Catholic Church and numerous were the heresies that erred in either ascribing too much or too little of the Divine Nature to Jesus. The landscape was littered with private interpreters, like yourself, who thought themselves competent to war against the Pillar and Ground of Truth, the Catholic Church.
The second quote of Peter warns us against folks, like Calvin, who came along with his own personal opinions and usurped Divinely-constituted Authority. <>