Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Wgw]

Doesn't matter; besides your Easter to Pentecost (giving of Spirit) will never be 50. The count is 7 weeks (Sunday to Sabbath) of Sabbaths (49 days) plus/to the day after the Sabbath (Sunday). You're following the myth that says the sheaf was always offered on a Sunday (after the Sabbath). See Lev. 23:11-15, the Septuagint will clarify it for you. There's the weekly Sabbath and first day of unleavened bread Sabbath.

Actually this is why the Orthodox make a big deal about Pentecost Monday. The Pentecost Sunday service while a major feast also has an element of a vigil in the form of Kneeling Vespers.

 

[Wgw]

In the Bible there is heaven and there is hell.

In the RCC there is something else - extreme torment - but not quite hell. It is "purgatory" -- and the idea is that almost everyone but the extremely wicked - go to purgatory -- tortured for all their sins on earth - and then to heaven.

You can buy (Tetzel) or earn indulgences to get your loved ones out of purgatory and of course anyone who was a loving family member would do everything possible to ensure that they get out fast.

Indulgences have not been on sale since the Counter Reformation and are viewed by Catholics as an aberration. It is also to my knowledge no longer possible to endow a chantry fpr the service of requiem masses.

At any rate Purgatory is something for my Catholic friends to expain; the Orthodox do not believe in it. Purgatory and the Protestant rejection of it actually come across to Orthodox ears as attempts to water down the rather more terrifying doctrine of the apostolic Church.

Which still seemed like Good News because prior to it, the prevailing views of the afterlife in the major religions of the Roman world were rather bleak; only Judaism and Egyptian paganism offered much hope. Hence Epicureanism.

 

[Wgw]

The time during which they were burning Christians alive - is considered by many to be the dark ages.

As you point out - some call it "the Renaisssance"

The Dark Ages was a period of Western European history stretching from the 6th to the 13th century that began with the fall of the Western Roman Empire and ended with the Roman Renaissance.

The auto da fe, most of the victims of which were charged with secretly practicing Islam or Judaism, continued into the early 19th century; only someone entirely devoid of erudition would call the early 19th century "The Dark Ages."

You might find it helpful to study the defintion of historical terminology rather than randomly using it.

 

[Wgw]

Tell us three extant oral traditions in Paul's time you are commanded to follow.

There is only one Holy Tradition, and all aspects of it began with the first century church in the time of St. Paul. Express any Orthodox doctrine, and you can rest assured it originated with the faith of the first century church. For example, the practice of serving Matins and Vespers began with daily prayers held before dawn and after dusk at the graves of martyrs like St. Paul, in order to avoid detection; from this we also get the veneration of relics.

 

[Wgw]

Sadly for that speculation - the text is verbatim, accurate, and irrefutable in demonstrating the way that sola scriptura testing of tradition was used by Christ to hammer the traditions of the Jews.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

The idea that Christ relied on Sola Scriptura is laughable given that the Gospel of Mark which younrely on to prove that point was not in existence during His ministry; what is more, He directly revosed certain scriptural laws and voided others, which was His divine prerogative. It simply demonstrates my point that the Word of God was Christ himself and that your repeated quoting of Mark ch. 7 amounts to the abuse of scripture.

 

[Wgw]

Again, you have absolutely zero evidence for this, even in Tradition it does not exist anywhere that Peter (or any apostle) observed Easter on a Sunday after the full moon after the equinox. You've made it up to suit your denomination's claim so-called of being apostolic.

No, I have not. Quartodecimianism, which you claim was the universal practice of the Early Church, is not known to have existed outside of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey).

 

[Wgw]

To line up with scripture - all Tradition has to do is -- not contradict it.

Sadly for much of the tradition floating around today - that standard is hard to meet.

The Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church is not contradictory to Scripture but rather contains it. The ROCOR priest Fr. John Whiteford has a nice blog which conveniently refutes the various idiotic claims people make about our Orthodox traditions: http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/?m=1

 

[BobRyan]

The Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church is not contradictory to Scripture but rather contains it.

Likely the same claim that the magisterium of the one true nation-church started by God Himself at Sinai - were thinking to themselves when Christ hammered their traditions "sola scriptura" in Mark 7:6-13 as I think most of us here on this thread would agree.

The question is how is that point proven? How is it that those traditions line up with actual scripture... ahh there's the rub.

 

[BobRyan]

The idea that Christ relied on Sola Scriptura is laughable given that the Gospel of Mark

Until we "read the details" in Mark 7:6-13 and see the very thing that you need to "laugh" at - in the actual text.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.[/QUOTE]

which younrely on to prove that point was not in existence during His ministry;

Sadly for that speculation - the Mark 7:6-13 incident did happen during His ministry - and we can all see exactly what He is quoting 'in the text'!

what is more, He directly revosed certain scriptural laws

He amplified in Matt 5 the Laws He gave in the OT

and voided others

And voided - none.

repeated quoting of Mark ch. 7 amounts to the abuse of scripture.

It is the opposite of the "repeated Bible avoidance" solution you are trying out.

 

[Wgw]

On the contrary, our Lord and His disciples ceased to adhere to the Sabbath according to Jewish practice; the divorce procedures in Mosaic law were rescinded, so that now dovorce is essentially equated with adultery (which is why the Roman Catholics reject it, and whynthe Orthodox in general penalize persons for it).

These were very substantial changes vs. Jewish law.

It would be of benefit if you would actually bother about accuracy rather than merely copy-pasting a text from Mark which it has been shown does not mean what you claim it means. I consider your tactics reflective of the institutional dishonesty that permeates every depraved facet of the SDA cult, which certainly does not embrace sola scriptura but rather relies upon the private revelations of the heresiarch Ellen G. White. I consider that the SDA is not authentically Nicene but rather crypto-Arian, crypto-Nestorian and crypto-Ebionite.

 

[n2thelight]

The idea that Christ relied on Sola Scriptura is laughable given that the Gospel of Mark which younrely on to prove that point was not in existence during His ministry; what is more, He directly revosed certain scriptural laws and voided others, which was His divine prerogative. It simply demonstrates my point that the Word of God was Christ himself and that your repeated quoting of Mark ch. 7 amounts to the abuse of scripture.

What was Christ answer to everything?Was it not"have you read"?Where did He ever say,tradition?Read what?

 

[n2thelight]

Let me ask a question

Can tradition without the Bible save me?

Can the Bible without tradition save me?

 

[Wgw]

What was Christ answer to everything?Was it not"have you read"?Where did He ever say,tradition?Read what?

Our Lord was of course referring to the Old Testament as the New Testament did not uet exist. Tradition conveys the Gospel which in turn is effectively authenticated by OT scripture.

 

[Wgw]

Let me ask a question

Can tradition without the Bible save me?

Can the Bible without tradition save me?

Tradition includes the Bible, so your question is based on a false dichotomy.

However historically the majority of Christians were not posessed of the extreme wealth required to own a complete set of Old and New Testament scriptures; indeed for at least the period 500-1500 AD we can safely assume the majority of Christians were either illiterate, subliterate or unable to read or write the various languages in which the Bible existed (the Orthodox have always made a major effort to translate, which is why in addition to the ancient Greek and Syriac, you have from ancient times translations in Coptic, Classical Armenian, Georgian, Ge'ez, and Church Slavonic, among other languages). For Orthodox Christians who could not afford a Bible or read one, the Church read the Bible to them in the liturgy. In particular, the Oriental Orthodox tend to go all out, with four scripture lessons in the divine liturgy in addition to those associated with the Hours.

The liturgy itself aside from the scripture lessons it contains is also constructed from the relevant Biblical passages that relate to the Eucharist and the economy of salvation, so that the essential Gospel message is essentially that which is contained in the liturgical text itself, repeated at each service. This text in turn quotes the written Gospels, which in turn in turn quote earlier liturgical forms, some unwritten and others preserved in the Pauline epistles. The liturgical text also quotes these Pauline epistles and the Old Testament; the liturgy is an inherently scriptural expression of scripture (which is neccessarily somewhat self-referential). It is for this reason that the Biblical text of the services is found in the ubiquitous prayer books of Orthhodox Christians.

 

[n2thelight]

Tradition includes the Bible, so your question is based on a false dichotomy.

However historically the majority of Christians were not posessed of the extreme wealth required to own a complete set of Old and New Testament scriptures; indeed for at least the period 500-1500 AD we can safely assume the majority of Christians were either illiterate, subliterate or unable to read or write the various languages in which the Bible existed (the Orthodox have always made a major effort to translate, which is why in addition to the ancient Greek and Syriac, you have from ancient times translations in Coptic, Classical Armenian, Georgian, Ge'ez, and Church Slavonic, among other languages). For Orthodox Christians who could not afford a Bible or read one, the Church read the Bible to them in the liturgy. In particular, the Oriental Orthodox tend to go all out, with four scripture lessons in the divine liturgy in addition to those associated with the Hours.

The liturgy itself aside from the scripture lessons it contains is also constructed from the relevant Biblical passages that relate to the Eucharist and the economy of salvation, so that the essential Gospel message is essentially that which is contained in the liturgical text itself, repeated at each service. This text in turn quotes the written Gospels, which in turn in turn quote earlier liturgical forms, some unwritten and others preserved in the Pauline epistles. The liturgical text also quotes these Pauline epistles and the Old Testament; the liturgy is an inherently scriptural expression of scripture (which is neccessarily somewhat self-referential). It is for this reason that the Biblical text of the services is found in the ubiquitous prayer books of Orthhodox Christians.

Why does one need tradition?And is that not adding to the word,since you'll say tradition is equal to scripture.....Guess what Im trying to ask is,why does one need tradition

 

[n2thelight]

We don't know what happens in Purgatory. But we do know that, if you're in Purgatory, you are going to heaven. You can't buy indulgences.

So is purgatory a tradition?And being that it's not scriptual,how do you'll feel it's true?

 

[Standing Up]

No, I have not. Quartodecimianism, which you claim was the universal practice of the Early Church, is not known to have existed outside of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey).

So as I thought. You've nothing, absolutely nothing to support your man-made tradition that Peter and other apostles observed Easter. At this stage, I doubt you even know what Quartodeciman means.

 

[Wgw]

Why does one need tradition?And is that not adding to the word,since you'll say tradition is equal to scripture.....Guess what Im trying to ask is,why does one need tradition

Well because if you did nit have tradition, you would not have scripture, which according to the Orthodox (that is to say, the people who know what they are talking about, if you will condescend to indulge a little cheeky sectarianism on my part), is coterminous. So scripture is part of tradition, in our view.

Now, as to why one needs the other parts of scripture, I would contend that even you rely on it, for example, in knowing what books are and are not a part of the New Testament. The NT canon is Tradition, the chapter and verse demarcations are traditional (if not a part of Tradition; I find them annoying and would prefer unversified block text based on lectionary pericopes, which is actually how Biblical texts arranged for liturgical purposes like the ornate Gospel Book that is venerated in Orthodoxy are structured, and that is authentic Holy Tradition).

 

[Wgw]

So as I thought. You've nothing, absolutely nothing to support your man-made tradition that Peter and other apostles observed Easter. At this stage, I doubt you even know what Quartodeciman means.

The Quartodecimians celebrated Pascha based on 14 Nisan as the date of the Crucifixion. There are no records of this being the normal practice outside of the Roman province of Asia Minor (which does notabky include Ephesus and Smyrna, but which excludes the more important sees of Antioch, Rome and Alexandria, which were the major urban centers of Christianity after the destruction of Jerusalem).

 

[n2thelight]

Well because if you did nit have tradition, you would not have scripture, which according to the Orthodox (that is to say, the people who know what they are talking about, if you will condescend to indulge a little cheeky sectarianism on my part), is coterminous. So scripture is part of tradition, in our view.

Now, as to why one needs the other parts of scripture, I would contend that even you rely on it, for example, in knowing what books are and are not a part of the New Testament. The NT canon is Tradition, the chapter and verse demarcations are traditional (if not a part of Tradition; I find them annoying and would prefer unversified block text based on lectionary pericopes, which is actually how Biblical texts arranged for liturgical purposes like the ornate Gospel Book that is venerated in Orthodoxy are structured, and that is authentic Holy Tradition).

Scripture did'nt come from tradition,and scripture is not tradition,is that not why Christ seperated the two?