Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Wgw]

Our Lord did not distinguish between Holy Tradition and Scripture, but rather between Rabinnical-Pharisaic traditions and Holy Tradition inclusive of Scripture, as is corroborated by 2 Thess. 2:15.

 

[Standing Up]

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).

Alexandria and the British Isles are recorded as observing the 14th. You're simply misinformed, relying on traditions of men.

You ready to admit Peter and Christ didn't follow your so-called Tradition of observing Easter?

 

[Standing Up]

Our Lord did not distinguish between Holy Tradition and Scripture, but rather between Rabinnical-Pharisaic traditions and Holy Tradition inclusive of Scripture, as is corroborated by 2 Thess. 2:15.

You've yet to name three of those oral Traditions extant in Paul's time.

 

[Wgw]

Alexandria and the British Isles are recorded as observing the 14th. You're simply misinformed, relying on traditions of men.

You ready to admit Peter and Christ didn't follow your so-called Tradition of observing Easter?

Alexandria on the contrary was one of the leaders in the process of standardization of the Julian Paschalion (or Computus in Catholic terminology).

I am inclined to doubt your statement regarding Brittania, but it does not mich matter considering the profound insignifigance of Britain to the early Church; recall that the Romans lost control of the province of Brittania to various primitive tribes, hence St. Gregory the Great having to dispatch St. Augustine of Canterbury to evangelize the Angles and restore the Church in Britain. The British Isles prior to that point were distinguished primarily by giving us the heretic Pelagius, a dubious honor.

 

[Wgw]

You've yet to name three of those oral Traditions extant in Paul's time.

There are not Traditions plural but rather one Tradition.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

It is very Scriptural, to someone with a complete Bible, even to Protestants.
In Matthew 5:26 and Luke 12:59 Christ is condemning sin and speaks of liberation only after expiation. “Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” Now we know that no last penny needs to be paid in Heaven and from Hell there is no liberation at all; hence the reference must apply to a third place.

Matthew 12:32 says, “And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Here Jesus speaks of sin against the Holy Spirit. The implication is that some sins can be forgiven in the world to come. We know that in Hell there is no liberation and in Heaven nothing imperfect can enter it as we see in the next part. Sin is not forgiven when a soul reaches its final destination because in heaven there is no need for forgiveness of sin and in hell the choice to go there is already made.

Revelation 21:27: “…but nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who does abominable things or tells lies.” The place that is to be entered (the place to which this passage refers) is heaven (read the text around it for context).

These are all pictures of what the Catholic Church means by purgatory.

 

[Standing Up]

There are not Traditions plural but rather one Tradition.

Okay, so you have nothing of Tradition extant in Paul's time that you observe. This is why some of us use scripture as the rule of faith.

 

[Wgw]

Okay, so you have nothing of Tradition extant in Paul's time that you observe. This is why some of us use scripture as the rule of faith.

On the contrary. I can say without equivocation the entire Orthodox Holy Tradition originates with the Apostles.

Now, for some specific examples, lets pop open the Didache (c. 55 AD):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

In Ch. 1-6 we see prototypically Orthodox kerygmatics.

In 7:1-4 we see a summary of Baptism as the Orthodox practice it.

In Ch. 8 we see a summary of Orthodox fasting and also a minimum requirement for daily prayer.

In Ch. 9 and 10 we see a summary of the Eucharist.

In Ch. 14 and 15 we see a summary of essential practices regarding the hierarchy.

The remaining chapters deal with questions specific to the administration of the Apostolic Church, and the discernment of false prophets, principles which are still applied in essence.

 

[Standing Up]

On the contrary. I can say without equivocation the entire Orthodox Holy Tradition originates with the Apostles.

Now, for some specific examples, lets pop open the Didache (c. 55 AD):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

In Ch. 1-6 we see prototypically Orthodox kerygmatics.

In 7:1-4 we see a summary of Baptism as the Orthodox practice it.

In Ch. 8 we see a summary of Orthodox fasting and also a minimum requirement for daily prayer.

In Ch. 9 and 10 we see a summary of the Eucharist.

In Ch. 14 and 15 we see a summary of essential practices regarding the hierarchy.

The remaining chapters deal with questions specific to the administration of the Apostolic Church, and the discernment of false prophets, principles which are still applied in essence.

Uhm, isn't the didache written? You quoted Paul as saying observe the traditions whether written or oral. You're telling us you know those extant oral traditions. Give it another shot.

 

[Standing Up]

Alexandria on the contrary was one of the leaders in the process of standardization of the Julian Paschalion (or Computus in Catholic terminology).

Clement of Alexandria confirms the Quartodeciman view (Christ died on the 14th). About 455 Alexandria would conform to Rome's view.

I am inclined to doubt your statement regarding Brittania, but it does not mich matter considering the profound insignifigance of Britain to the early Church; recall that the Romans lost control of the province of Brittania to various primitive tribes, hence St. Gregory the Great having to dispatch St. Augustine of Canterbury to evangelize the Angles and restore the Church in Britain. The British Isles prior to that point were distinguished primarily by giving us the heretic Pelagius, a dubious honor.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.ii.iii.html

The point remains that the apostles taught the same from Palestine to Alexandria to the Britain area. It was not, as you think, localized to a couple of cities in Asia Minor. In fact, believe it was Telesphorus who allowed/observed it in Rome. He was, I believe, the first pope martyred.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Uhm, isn't the didache written? You quoted Paul as saying observe the traditions whether written or oral. You're telling us you know those extant oral traditions. Give it another shot.

It is. But it's not Biblical, is it? Therefore, it's Tradition, because it's of Apostolic origin. Canonicity, for us, mainly means that it can be used in Liturgy.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Clement of Alexandria confirms the Quartodeciman view (Christ died on the 14th). About 455 Alexandria would conform to Rome's view.


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.ii.iii.html

The point remains that the apostles taught the same from Palestine to Alexandria to the Britain area. It was not, as you think, localized to a couple of cities in Asia Minor. In fact, believe it was Telesphorus who allowed/observed it in Rome. He was, I believe, the first pope martyred.

So one person confirms your theory, so it's right? Who is Clement, in terms of his authority to declare dogma?

 

[Wgw]

So one person confirms your theory, so it's right? Who is Clement, in terms of his authority to declare dogma?

A discredited heretic (according to St. Photius), who was also struck from the Roman martyrology by Pope Sixtus V.

 

[Root of Jesse]

A discredited heretic (according to St. Photius), who was also struck from the Roman martyrology by Pope Sixtus V.

Yup! Exactly.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

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

Indeed Christ did not say "setting aside your tradition you hold to your tradition".

An incredibly obvious detail that we can all see in the text.

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68694572, member: 235244"]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]

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'!

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

And voided - none.

It is the opposite of the "repeated Bible avoidance" solution you are trying out.[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, our Lord and His disciples ceased to adhere to the Sabbath

On the contrary in Matt 5 Christ explicitly states that we are not to teach that he came to downsize the Law in the least.

Her merely trashed the traditions of the Jewish magisterium where they were out of line with the Bible.

Matt 5
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Paul agrees with Christ.

Rom 3:31 "Do we then make void the law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law"

according to Jewish practice; the divorce procedures in Mosaic law were rescinded,

Christ did not change civil law. Not even Moses' civil law. Rather He expanded the Law saying that hatred of others is the same as Murder.

so that now dovorce is essentially equated with adultery

He expanded and strengthened moral laws that apply to individuals. But he did not void civil laws - because in captivity Israel lived under the civil laws of their masters.

It would be of benefit if you would actually bother about accuracy rather than merely speculating in post after post.

I consider your tactics in regard to Bible detail avoidance (in the extreme), name-calling (almost endless) and speculation piled on top of speculation (almost endless) reflective of institutional dishonesty

 

[Wgw]

What our Lord in fact did was to revise the observance of the Law in accordance with his divine preprogative, voiding certain aspects of Mosaic legislation and introducing new legislation. So for example, the requirements to observe the Sabbath and the Kosher dietary restrictions were waived during and after his Earthly ministry respectively. At the same time, other legislation like the ban on homosexuality remained in force, but the Church has never claimed to have available to it the legal remedies such as execution or corporal punishment available to the Sanhedrin (at least, not the Oriental Orthodox).

 

[Wgw]

One of the nice things about Orthodoxy is that accusations against us from schismatic heretics (name calling! the horror!) do not really stick due to the tens of millions martyred by Muslims beginning with the Ummayid Caliphate, continuing with the Ottomans and now the Islamic State, and diverse other petty regimes, and by the militant atheist communists of the USSR and other states. This is not to say there are no adventist martyrs; there are a few, but the ratio of martyrs to members is extremely low, whereas in any Orthodox parish one should be able to meet someone whose relative was either a martyr or confessor.

So its very hard to accuse the Orthodox of institutional dishonesty given our record.

 

[BobRyan]

One of the nice things about Orthodoxy is that accusations against us from schismatic heretics (name calling! the horror!) do not really stick due to the tens of millions martyred by Muslims beginning with the Ummayid Caliphate, continuing with the Ottomans and now the Islamic State, and diverse other petty regimes, and by the militant atheist communists of the USSR and other states. This is not to say there are no adventist martyrs; there are a few, but the ratio of martyrs to members is extremely low, whereas in any Orthodox parish one should be able to meet someone whose relative was either a martyr or confessor.

So its very hard to accuse the Orthodox of institutional dishonesty given our record.

Institutional dishonesty has nothing to do with Muslims targeting this or that denomination. It has everything to do with doctrinal errors, man made traditions, and institutionalized intolerance as was demonstrated by even the Russian Orthodox prior to communism and it was abuses during that age in Russia - abuse and intolerance that gave rise to communism in Russia--- and to some extent -- intolerance shown in Russia since then by the orthodox including the example of orthodox Russians attacking Christian churches in the Ukraine.

As for Muslims - it is interesting that in Syria it was the orthodox and other Christian groups who "inform" the Syrian government that SDAs must be "Jewish spies because they keep the Bible Sabbath". (As one SDA Syrian who moved to the U.S recently informed me).

1951 http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/NUO/NUO19630903-V27-17__C.pdf

"Various Eastern Orthodox Churches represent most Syrian Christians Read more at: https://tr.im/Ta1hF"
http://www.infobarrel.com/Where_Seventh-day_Adventists_Are_Not_Yet_Middle_East

Your own proclivity to name-calling and false-accusation on this very thread demonstrating in a small way the tactics so effectively used in that example.

 

[BobRyan]

What our Lord in fact did was to revise the observance of the Law in accordance with his divine preprogative, voiding certain aspects of Mosaic legislation and introducing new legislation. So for example, the requirements to observe the Sabbath and the Kosher dietary restrictions were waived during and after his Earthly ministry respectively.

Just not in real life.

In Real life - in the actual text - Christ uses the established law of God - the Written Word - to hammer Jewish church sacred/infallible (supposedly) - tradition "Sola scriptura" with direct appeal to "Moses said" and the Law of God as given in the OT.


QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68698067, member: 235244"]QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68694572, member: 235244"]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.

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'!

==============================================================

In "real life" - Christ expanded the LAW found in the Bible - He did not diminish it.



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

And voided - none.

On the contrary in Matt 5 Christ explicitly states that we are not to teach that he came to downsize the Law in the least.

Her merely trashed the traditions of the Jewish magisterium where they were out of line with the Bible.

Matt 5
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Paul agrees with Christ.

Rom 3:31 "Do we then make void the law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law"

Christ did not change civil law. Not even Moses' civil law. Rather He expanded the Law saying that hatred of others is the same as Murder.

He expanded and strengthened moral laws that apply to individuals. But he did not void civil laws - because in captivity Israel lived under the civil laws of their masters.
[/QUOTE]

Christ did not attack Lev 11 - regarding the prohibition of eating cats, rats, dogs, bats... etc.

Rather in Mark 7 Christ deals with the subject of church bogus traditions related to eating 'bread'' - So also in Mark 2 "eating wheat" -- there was nothing in Lev 11 against eating bread or wheat.

I say this because "details matter" and false speculation does not survive the details in the text.

In Acts 10 Peter points out that to that very day - years after the cross... Peter was still not eating rats, cats, dogs, bats etc.