Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[thecolorsblend]

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.

I've read some Catholic apologists say that "Purgatory" can be a bit misleading by virtue of its name. They then went on to say that if it had instead been called "Purgation" it might be easier to accept. This mortal must put on immortality. Even Protestants will agree with that. And the process of being so cleansed, purged of sin one might say, has to be called something...

Honestly, there's an extent to which even Protestants believe in Purgatory inasmuch as they ought to understand that sin and corruption cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It's a flawlessly logical doctrine when you invest even a brief amount of analysis into it.

 

[Wgw]

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.

On the contrary, your calumny about the Orthodox asode, institutional dishonesty is demonstrated most fully by the SDA's attempts to pass itself off as just another Protestant denomination, working to carefully conceal the insular, cult-like nature of the organization, the history involving the Great Dissappointment of 1848, rampant Arianism and rhe private revelations of Ellen G. White, the history of the use of illusioneering techniques by missionaries abroad in the early 20th century, in Iran, and elsewhere, which included the use of stage magic to manipulate Armenian Orthodox among others into converting (for example, one family known to me personally was induced to convert in the 1940s following witnessing an SDA missionary appearing to emit colored exhalations while he preached, a routine trick in stage magic that would have been easily detected in the US or Western Europe, less so in the credulous and naive community of Persian Christians), the well documented patterns of psychological abuse, bullying and unsafe conditions at SDA parochial schools, the bizarre attempts by 19th century Adventists in the cereal and grain products industry, inckuding the inventor of the Graham cracker and the founder of Kellog's cereal, to mass produce bland foods in an effort to stealthily reduce the natural sex drive of consumers, et cetera, ad nauseum, ad infintum.

Say what you will about the Orthodox, but we have never attempted to market cereal products in an attempt to intervene in the sex lives of the general population, which is both sinister and at the same time ridiculously funny. I also am greatly amused by the suggestion that the Syriac and Armenian Orthodox function as a counter-intelligence apparatus for the Assad regime; I am reminded of the meme posted in the EO forum of Orthodox bishops wielding the red lightsaber associated with Sith Lords from the Star Wars franchise. Alas our episcopate to my uncertain knowledge does not posess telekinesis or psi powers, nor have we used stage magic in order to suggest that this is the case.

The real crux of the matter is of course the misleading suggestion that the SDA is a sola scriptura denomination, which is certainly not the case.

 

[Wgw]

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.

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.

On the subject of dietary requirements, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 expressly states that Christians are solely required to abstain from foods offered to idols and things strangled. This was based on an emerging consensus based on the revelation received by St. Peter, et cetera, and was a crucial moment in allowing the Church to proselytize gentiles. Of course I suspect many Christians today routinely inadvertantly consume strangled food, or might partake of candy while touring India that has been offered to the idol of a Hindu deity.

 

[Wgw]

I've read some Catholic apologists say that "Purgatory" can be a bit misleading by virtue of its name. They then went on to say that if it had instead been called "Purgation" it might be easier to accept. This mortal must put on immortality. Even Protestants will agree with that. And the process of being so cleansed, purged of sin one might say, has to be called something...

Honestly, there's an extent to which even Protestants believe in Purgatory inasmuch as they ought to understand that sin and corruption cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It's a flawlessly logical doctrine when you invest even a brief amount of analysis into it.

The Orthodox have a related doctrine which is rather more frighteningly biblical, which was described for example by Fr. Seraphim Rose. My own view is that Purgatory represents an attempt to "make sense of" a doctrine that is quite terrifying, which the Orthodox declined to do. In turn Protestantism simply deleted purgatory, and this in part explains some of its appeal.

 

[Albion]

I've read some Catholic apologists say that "Purgatory" can be a bit misleading by virtue of its name. They then went on to say that if it had instead been called "Purgation" it might be easier to accept. This mortal must put on immortality. Even Protestants will agree with that. And the process of being so cleansed, purged of sin one might say, has to be called something...

Honestly, there's an extent to which even Protestants believe in Purgatory inasmuch as they ought to understand that sin and corruption cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It's a flawlessly logical doctrine when you invest even a brief amount of analysis into it.

Except that the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory was enunciated by a church council and has very definite characteristics, functions, and much more that's quite specific.

For people to say--as is commonly done these days by those who want to (1) maintain the claim that the church never changes its teachings but, simultaneously, (2) to find a way to cast off this outdated and now unpopular concept--that Purgatory is something or other about getting you ready for heaven is strictly disingenuous.

 

[Wgw]

I should add that in the Orthodox doctrine which I believe represents the more ancient perspective, sins that in Roman Catholicism would be leas to purgatory could have under some conditions the effect of being damnatory; the Orthodox lack any system of soteriology, the idea of a purgative fire is not associated to any spatial or temporal locality, plane or existence, there are no indulgences, and so on, but we do have the equivalent of the requiem mass and prayers for the dead are viewed as efficacious even in some cases as a means of ameliorating the pain of hellfire. What is more, many subscribe to the somewhat Kafka-esque notion of the soul after death being challenged about sin in something that could be visualized as a form of celestial passport control. This much more arbitrary eschatology makes me sympathetic of RC attempts to rationalize it, even though I disagree with them. I consider the mere possibility of salvation to be very Good News compared to the dismal prospects offered by paganism, or the annhilation craved by Buddhists and other Eastern religions, and believed to be inevitable by atheists.

 

[Wgw]

Except that the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory was enunciated by a church council and has very definite characteristics, functions, and much more that's quite specific.

For people to say--as is commonly done these days by those who want to (1) maintain the claim that the church never changes its teachings but, simultaneously, (2) to find a way to cast off this outdated and now unpopular concept--that Purgatory is something or other about getting you ready for heaven is strictly disingenuous.

I disagree; in my mind it is simply the Roman Catholic Church adhering to a rationalization of the more unpleasant and more strictly Biblical soteriological positons of the Apostolic Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

And you don't do any of that, right Bob?

 

[Standing Up]

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.

Hello? He was saying his group OO abides the oral traditions of Paul's time. Just like RC makes the same claim. He's yet to name three of those oral traditions.

PS. Oral means unwritten. And written would not be oral.

 

[Standing Up]

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

There's also Peter of Alexandria. Or Theophilus of Alexandria.

Point is the man-made tradition of Easter was unknown to the apostles and Christ. The quartodeciman view had spread throughout the world.

PS. Do you think Mark taught contrarily to St. Peter?

 

[Standing Up]

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

Please provide proof (the link to original work) that Photius viewed Clement of Alexandria a heretic. Although who should care?

Isn't this the same Photius who helped form the schism with Rome of 1054 re the filioque? He's your hero?

 

[Wgw]

Please provide proof (the link to original work) that Photius viewed Clement of Alexandria a heretic. Although who should care?

Isn't this the same Photius who helped form the schism with Rome of 1054 re the filioque? He's your hero?

It would be very helpful if you actually acquired a certain degree of knowledge of ecclesiastical history. The filioque controversy was not the direct cause of the Great Schism, which was primarily related to ecclesiastical polity. I have no problems with St. Photius.

Now, on the subject of Clement of Alexandria, the temptation to provide you with an lmgtfy link is very strong. Suffice it to say merely looking up Clement on Wikipedia will confirm my statement with a citation. It should also be noted that in any case where one can name a notable early Church father not regarded as a saint by the Orthodox it can be assumed heresy was the cause; I know of no instances where a major Patristic figure who was not associated with heresy is not venerated.

 

[Wgw]

Hello? He was saying his group OO abides the oral traditions of Paul's time. Just like RC makes the same claim. He's yet to name three of those oral traditions.

PS. Oral means unwritten. And written would not be oral.

Well on that point either I misread you or you are raising the goalposts; there is of course just one Tradition in the Orthodox Church and its contents are well documented.

 

[Standing Up]

Well on that point either I misread you or you are raising the goalposts; there is of course just one Tradition in the Orthodox Church and its contents are well documented.

You mentioned 2thes 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

You've indicated your group knows the oral traditions extant in Paul's time to which he referred. Please cite three.

 

[Standing Up]

It would be very helpful if you actually acquired a certain degree of knowledge

Indeed. You've pretended to know something of the quartodecimans, even to the false notion that Peter and the apostles followed the man-made tradition of Easter. The point of Clement and the others in Alexandria I mentioned is to show an example of the widespread practice.

Or do you simply believe Mark in Alexandria taught differently from Peter the apostle? Or maybe was it your group who got it wrong?

 

[Wgw]

You mentioned 2thes 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

You've indicated your group knows the oral traditions extant in Paul's time to which he referred. Please cite three.

I already have; St. Paul in using the word "word" does not proscribe the documentation of these traditions, which occurred in his lifetime. The Didache is a verbal record of Holy Tradition. It is not the only such record; others exist (the epistles of Ss. Clement and Ignatius, for example).

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hello? He was saying his group OO abides the oral traditions of Paul's time. Just like RC makes the same claim. He's yet to name three of those oral traditions.

PS. Oral means unwritten. And written would not be oral.

Where did we ever say that Sacred Tradition was strictly oral?

 

[Root of Jesse]

There's also Peter of Alexandria. Or Theophilus of Alexandria.

Point is the man-made tradition of Easter was unknown to the apostles and Christ. The quartodeciman view had spread throughout the world.

PS. Do you think Mark taught contrarily to St. Peter?

You can't prove that. You don't even know how the apostles spent the first anniversary of Easter.

PS Mark didn't teach St. Peter. Mark was a disciple of St. Peter, and probably his scribe or secretary.

 

[Wgw]

Indeed. You've pretended to know something of the quartodecimans, even to the false notion that Peter and the apostles followed the man-made tradition of Easter. The point of Clement and the others in Alexandria I mentioned is to show an example of the widespread practice.

Or do you simply believe Mark in Alexandria taught differently from Peter the apostle? Or maybe was it your group who got it wrong?

Alas its not my fault if you choose to lie about the geographical extent of the Quartodecimians; this was a regional practice in Asia Minor; St. Polycarp, who was a quartodecimian, voluntarily went to Rome to begin the process of standardization; he did not break communion over the issue. St. Mark and his successors in the Alexandrian church were not quartodecimians; Clement was not a Patriarch but rather essentially an overrated, heretical professor of theology.

 

[Wgw]

You can't prove that. You don't even know how the apostles spent the first anniversary of Easter.

PS Mark didn't teach St. Peter. Mark was a disciple of St. Peter, and probably his scribe or secretary.

Standing up was presumably lying about St. Peter of Alexandria, a third century Pope of Alexandria who was martyred in the persecutions; his siccessor was St. Alexander who in turn was succeeded by St. Athanasius.