Post edit: It looks like what I'm discussing only partially applies to the discussion here. Part of it is what makes a valid answer on this site. The issues raised below are probably better covered by a VLQ flag, but either way I nominate them for deletion as not being on-topic answers on this site.
In the wild:
"No" is an answer. So is "yes", "maybe", etc.
On Stack Exchange:
One of the stock post notices that can be slapped on things written up in the answer slot that only fit the definition above has this to say:
insufficient explanation We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer: please explain why you're recommending it as a solution. Answers that don't explain anything will be deleted.
SE sites aren't just looking for a yes or a no, we are here to connect all the dots and show the why. Questions that could be answered by a simple yes/no have almost no place on the network. Some explanation is almost always required.
On Biblical Hermeneutics:
We're here because we're supposed to be a place where you can pick the brains of experts in interpreting a specific ancient text and follow along, learning something about hermeneutics in the process. If all you want is a final meaning or application -- the yes/no of Biblical questions if you will -- then you are asking in the wrong spot. If you really want to know how to take the text apart and put it back together again, this should be where you can turn.
As such an answer that does nothing except pick out the one "yes/no" bit of a complex three part question and slap a single doctrinal data point in the answer slot is not an answer here. If it doesn't teach anything about hermeneutics, doesn't mention the text in question, doesn't engage the text in any way, doesn't show how a conclusion was drawn, then I don't think it has any place here.
If a single doctrinal data point is in any way a valid answer to the question, the question should be closed. In the case that raised this question, I think the question raised a perfectly on topic set of issues directly stemming from the text. Answers must start by engaging that text, wherever they end up.