Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[thecolorsblend]

It's hardly worth talking to folks who don't know much about their own religion.

And I would say I do. What you quoted isn't the Church's core teaching. The gospel is.

And btw, Sacred Tradition isn't exclusively oral.

 

[Wgw]

It's hardly worth talking to folks who don't know much about their own religion.

The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

In any event, the bible is sufficient for anyone to know all things salvific.

The Gnostics believed in saving knowledge, but I do not think this view is even remotely correct in terms of Nicene Christianity. The Creed indicates the need for the sacrament of Baptism, and expresses salvation of the Church, by virtue of the actions of Jesus Christ. I cannot accept any perspectove that even hints at the requirement of an actual understanding of the Bible, because assuming anyone posesses that knowledge, certainly such knowledge could not be conveyed to young children, or the mentally disabled.

So "knowing all things Salvific," if it is even possible, seems to me irrelevant in terms of obtaining the benefit of such things.

 

[Standing Up]

The Gnostics believed in saving knowledge, but I do not think this view is even remotely correct in terms of Nicene Christianity. The Creed indicates the need for the sacrament of Baptism, and expresses salvation of the Church, by virtue of the actions of Jesus Christ. I cannot accept any perspectove that even hints at the requirement of an actual understanding of the Bible, because assuming anyone posesses that knowledge, certainly such knowledge could not be conveyed to young children, or the mentally disabled.

So "knowing all things Salvific," if it is even possible, seems to me irrelevant in terms of obtaining the benefit of such things.

The creed's content source to scripture. If the creed says, you must believe in Mary's Assumption or Immaculate Conception to obtain salvation, why would you reject that?

 

[Wgw]

The creed's content source to scripture. If the creed says, you must believe in Mary's Assumption or Immaculate Conception to obtain salvation, why would you reject that?

One is not required to understand the Creed in order to benefit from it. The Assumption (if understood in opposition to the Dormition) and the immaculate Conception are not Orthodox doctrines; they are also not in the Nicene Creed. Under the canons of the Council of Ephesus ot would be forbidden to add them to the creed, interestingly, as Ephesus established the Constantinopolitan recension of 381 as definitive.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Just to add to that, the Church is not identical with a bunch of cardinals living in Rome.

Anyone claim that it was?

 

[Standing Up]

One is not required to understand the Creed in order to benefit from it.

Are you a universalist? If not, how does OO view the salvific experience (born-again from above)?

 

[Standing Up]

One is not required to understand the Creed in order to benefit from it. The Assumption (if understood in opposition to the Dormition) and the immaculate Conception are not Orthodox doctrines; they are also not in the Nicene Creed. Under the canons of the Council of Ephesus ot would be forbidden to add them to the creed, interestingly, as Ephesus established the Constantinopolitan recension of 381 as definitive.

The Marian dogmas are not in the creed, but are part of RC religion, necessary as a belief for their salvation. Saving knowledge or ascent to agree as it were.

 

[Wgw]

Are you a universalist? If not, how does OO view the salvific experience (born-again from above)?

I am certainly not a universalist. The Orthodox as a whole believe that salvation is facilitated through Jesus Christ, conferred through union with Him in the Church. So when we baptize, chrismate and communicate an infant or mentally disabled person, this facilitates their salvation. Others may potentially be saved owing to divine mercy.

With a crypto-Gnostic approach that requires actual comprehension of the Scriptures, one denies salvation to infants, young children and the mentally disabled.

 

[Wgw]

The Marian dogmas are not in the creed, but are part of RC religion, necessary as a belief for their salvation. Saving knowledge or ascent to agree as it were.

Assent without comprehension, or more precisely a lack of intentional dissent, is not a problem for me, and is presumably not a problem for Roman Catholics given their historic position that vernacular scripture was not required, and was perhaps undesirable.

 

[Standing Up]

I am certainly not a universalist. The Orthodox as a whole believe that salvation is facilitated through Jesus Christ, conferred through union with Him in the Church. So when we baptize, chrismate and communicate an infant or mentally disabled person, this facilitates their salvation. Others may potentially be saved owing to divine mercy.

With a crypto-Gnostic approach that requires actual comprehension of the Scriptures, one denies salvation to infants, young children and the mentally disabled.

So the Pauline preach, hear, believe, confess (Romans 10:9-14) isn't sufficient or even necessary unto salvation in your religion?

As to those who are not able (children, etc), how does Paul answer? hint 1Cor714

 

[bbbbbbb]

Assent without comprehension, or more precisely a lack of intentional dissent, is not a problem for me, and is presumably not a problem for Roman Catholics given their historic position that vernacular scripture was not required, and was perhaps undesirable.

That opens up an enormous can of worms. Because I am ignorant of the thousands of gods of Hinduism I could, by this reasoning, be considered to be a Hindu. I have assented, through my ignorance, to their existence and validity, have I not?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The traditions of the Catholic church are not the word of God, especial considering how they often contradict the word of God much like the Pharisees, and are simply MANMADE traditions

Some examples:
Salvation through receiving sacraments (Contradicted by John 3:16, Ephesans 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, John 3:36,Acts 16:30-31 and the thief on the cross)
Confession of sins to a priest to be absolved of them (1 Timothy 2:5, the idea of the Roman Catholic priesthood itself is refuted by 1 Peter 2:9)
Infant Baptism (refuted by Acts 8:36-37 and the fact that there is not a single passage of scripture that states babies were baptized, and before someone says it, households do not mean that it included babies, don't strech the text to fit manmade doctrine)
Baptism by sprinkling as opposed to baptism by Immersion
(the word Baptizo itself means to immerse or to dip, today even the Greek orthodox churches only do baptism by immersion because they understand the Greek langauge, Baptisms in the bible always were done in rivers and frequently make mention of coming out of the water, Romans 6 tells us that Baptism is a picture of the death burial and Resurrection of Christ, sprinkling is not a picture of burial)

Prayers to the Virgin Mary (refuted by 1 Timothy 2:5, and the fact that no scripture records any instance of where we are suppose to pray to saints instead of God.)

The Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary (Refuted by Matthew 1:25 and also the scripture mentions Jesus having siblings in Matthew 13:55)

Roman Catholic tradition is not inspired, and is a prime example of Matthew 15:8-9
"this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. but in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

The Roman Catholic traditions are not inspired, neither are the early church fathers, or the early church counsels.

Jesus said in Matthew 4:4 that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord, and when Jesus walked this earth he frequently said "it is written", Jesus did not quote the old rabbi's or scribes sayings and traditions as authority, he always taught and preached based on the written Old Testament scriptures, that was his authority. Jesus himself is called the word in John 1:1, Jesus is the word of God made flesh, when you contradict the written word, you are opposing the living word Jesus Christ.

Satan is a master deceiver, in Genesis he planted doubt about the authority of God's word, "Yeah hath God said". Sola Scripture is what Satan hates most Satan through the years has tried to destroy God's word through emperors like Diocletian and Atheist like Voltaire, but the bible stands, because God promised to preserve it in Psalm 12:5-6, The scriptures have prophecies of Christ in Is 7:14, Micah 5:2, Gen 3:15, and many many other places, God gave us the scriptures, and he intends them to be the guide for our lives, they alone determine truth, the scriptures are the only thing we have that are reliable tests of what is truth and what is not:

Psalm 119 says "thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path"

and in Psalm 138:2 "thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name"

The word of God is magnified above the HOLY name of God, you who sit here and belittle the word and claim it is not sufficient are guilty of blasphemy. The written word of God is our final authority, no single church or denomination, or churhc counsel,or priest, or Pastor, can claim infallibility apart from what's already written in the scriptures.if you tradition or doctrine does not line up with the written word of God you are wrong.

and by scriptures and word of God I mean the Hebrew Old Testament traditional Canon as contained in the Masoretic Text, and the Greek New Testament containing Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2nd Peter, 1,2,3 John, Jude, Revelation, all as contained in the Textus Receptus and preserved and translated into the King James Bible in English.

 

[Wgw]

So the Pauline preach, hear, believe, confess (Romans 10:9-14) isn't sufficient or even necessary unto salvation in your religion?

As to those who are not able (children, etc), how does Paul answer? hint 1Cor714

The Nicene Creed itself clearly requires a belief in "one baptism for the remission of sins," which joins one to the Church. So we are simply adhering to the ancient faith as expressed in the NT (Matthew 28:19), and adhering to the ancient standard. The proper way of interpreting St. Paul's remarks is as an exhortion to baptism, and indeed somewhat soecifically I think the "red baptism" of martyrdom, which does not rewuire a previous water baptism.

That opens up an enormous can of worms. Because I am ignorant of the thousands of gods of Hinduism I could, by this reasoning, be considered to be a Hindu. I have assented, through my ignorance, to their existence and validity, have I not?

Orthodox soteriology is not based on assent to existence, or on the other hand salvific knowledge, but is rather sacramental and ultimately directed towards theosis. This has the effect of closing several cans of worms that are opened when one requires knowledge or positive mental assent for salvation, which is of course impossible for young children and the mentally disabled.

 

[Wgw]

The traditions of the Catholic church are not the word of God, especial considering how they often contradict the word of God much like the Pharisees, and are simply MANMADE traditions

Some examples:
Salvation through receiving sacraments (Contradicted by John 3:16, Ephesans 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, John 3:36,Acts 16:30-31 and the thief on the cross)
Confession of sins to a priest to be absolved of them (1 Timothy 2:5, the idea of the Roman Catholic priesthood itself is refuted by 1 Peter 2:9)
Infant Baptism (refuted by Acts 8:36-37 and the fact that there is not a single passage of scripture that states babies were baptized, and before someone says it, households do not mean that it included babies, don't strech the text to fit manmade doctrine)
Baptism by sprinkling as opposed to baptism by Immersion
(the word Baptizo itself means to immerse or to dip, today even the Greek orthodox churches only do baptism by immersion because they understand the Greek langauge, Baptisms in the bible always were done in rivers and frequently make mention of coming out of the water, Romans 6 tells us that Baptism is a picture of the death burial and Resurrection of Christ, sprinkling is not a picture of burial)

Prayers to the Virgin Mary (refuted by 1 Timothy 2:5, and the fact that no scripture records any instance of where we are suppose to pray to saints instead of God.)

The Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary (Refuted by Matthew 1:25 and also the scripture mentions Jesus having siblings in Matthew 13:55)

Roman Catholic tradition is not inspired, and is a prime example of Matthew 15:8-9
"this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. but in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

The Roman Catholic traditions are not inspired, neither are the early church fathers, or the early church counsels.

Jesus said in Matthew 4:4 that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord, and when Jesus walked this earth he frequently said "it is written", Jesus did not quote the old rabbi's or scribes sayings and traditions as authority, he always taught and preached based on the written Old Testament scriptures, that was his authority. Jesus himself is called the word in John 1:1, Jesus is the word of God made flesh, when you contradict the written word, you are opposing the living word Jesus Christ.

Satan is a master deceiver, in Genesis he planted doubt about the authority of God's word, "Yeah hath God said". Sola Scripture is what Satan hates most Satan through the years has tried to destroy God's word through emperors like Diocletian and Atheist like Voltaire, but the bible stands, because God promised to preserve it in Psalm 12:5-6, The scriptures have prophecies of Christ in Is 7:14, Micah 5:2, Gen 3:15, and many many other places, God gave us the scriptures, and he intends them to be the guide for our lives, they alone determine truth, the scriptures are the only thing we have that are reliable tests of what is truth and what is not:

Psalm 119 says "thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path"

and in Psalm 138:2 "thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name"

The word of God is magnified above the HOLY name of God, you who sit here and belittle the word and claim it is not sufficient are guilty of blasphemy. The written word of God is our final authority, no single church or denomination, or churhc counsel,or priest, or Pastor, can claim infallibility apart from what's already written in the scriptures.if you tradition or doctrine does not line up with the written word of God you are wrong.

and by scriptures and word of God I mean the Hebrew Old Testament traditional Canon as contained in the Masoretic Text, and the Greek New Testament containing Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2nd Peter, 1,2,3 John, Jude, Revelation, all as contained in the Textus Receptus and preserved and translated into the King James Bible in English.

John 1:1 identifies the Word of God as Jesus Christ.

That aside, I see no one here belittling Holy Scripture or making blasphemous utterances, even those whose theology I reject unequivocally.

 

[thecolorsblend]

That opens up an enormous can of worms. Because I am ignorant of the thousands of gods of Hinduism I could, by this reasoning, be considered to be a Hindu. I have assented, through my ignorance, to their existence and validity, have I not?

That's a question for Hindus to answer, is it not?

 

[Standing Up]

The traditions of the Catholic church are not the word of God, especial considering how they often contradict the word of God much like the Pharisees, and are simply MANMADE traditions

While true enough that RC contradictions exist between their scripture and Tradition, this isn't the thread.

 

[Standing Up]

The Nicene Creed itself clearly requires a belief ...

You said infants do not need belief. So which is it?

Or are you thinking one simply needs to get wet without belief (your so-called Pauline baptism) to be saved? Any walk in the rain will do.

 

[Wgw]

You said infants do not need belief. So which is it?

Or are you thinking one simply needs to get wet without belief (your so-called Pauline baptism) to be saved? Any walk in the rain will do.

I should have written "clearly specifies one baptism."

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's a question for Hindus to answer, is it not?

It is, indeed. However, Hinduism does not have vicar(s) of their god(s) speaking infallibly for them. Hinduism is very loosely organized and has a lovely theology in which there are no significant consequences for those who are not Hindus. In Hinduism, if I, as a naughty Hindu, die, I will simply be reicarnated, possibly as a rich American. If I am a really devout Hindu, when I die I will simply cease to exist.

Thus, Hindus have no need to engage in the byzantine scrambling of reasoning to determine any means of making Hindus out of those who are otherwise not Hindus. You, on the other hand, are engaged in a system which has gone to extreme lengths to make third-class Christians out of those who are otherwise not in the least qualified to meet the standards of your religion to attain to sainthood.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Orthodox soteriology is not based on assent to existence, or on the other hand salvific knowledge, but is rather sacramental and ultimately directed towards theosis. This has the effect of closing several cans of worms that are opened when one requires knowledge or positive mental assent for salvation, which is of course impossible for young children and the mentally disabled.

The can of worms yet remains open in assimilating untold hundreds of millions of otherwise sentient individuals who assuredly do not partake of your religion. The possibility is even opened to the assimilation of various animals, especially pets, into heaven.