-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sola scriptura
- Thread starter Constantine the Sinner
- Start date
Albion
Facilitator
- Dec 8, 2004
- 111,127
- 33,262
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Why would you think that anyone is taking any of his teachings away?
No one has shown or advocated any such thing. On the contrary, what I hear you saying is that what God revealed to Man in his word isn't good enough for you--although it is adequate for God's purposes in giving divine revelation--so you think that we all should just generate a bunch of other teachings, even though they do not in any way affect a Christian's prospects for salvation.
And that is exactly why there came a time in history when Churchmen and theologians had to say "Enough" with making up all these new teachings, such as Papal Supremacy, the Assumption of Mary, Purgatory, and Indulgences. Do YOU believe in these teachings? Do you think that Christ taught them but they just didn't make it into the Bible?
Upvote
0
sculleywr
Orthodox Colitis Survivor
- Jul 23, 2011
- 7,789
- 683
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Others
Because you take away any of what He taught that isn't in Scripture. Granted, the Scripture isn't exactly a firm foundation since you can't know with certainty what is Scripture, so...
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
- Dec 8, 2004
- 111,127
- 33,262
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
No. I do not. You're simply defending speculation, legend, opinion, etc. made into doctrine and justified by saying "Christ taught this" even though there's no way of knowing that he did.
Upvote
0
sculleywr
Orthodox Colitis Survivor
- Jul 23, 2011
- 7,789
- 683
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Others
it is legend according to YOU. Not to reality. The fact is that without this "speculation, legend, opinion, etc.", you wouldn't have the Canon of the New Testament, which according to the person who penned it, was based on exactly that: Tradition. The fact is that Tradition =/= speculation. Tradition =/= legend. Tradition =/= opinion.
Tradition is "That which is handed down".
the Apostolic Tradition is "That which was handed down from the Apostles and preserved by the succession of the presbyters in the Church".
This is not legend. It is reality. And unfortunately, there isn't a single Sola scriptura understanding of Scripture until the Protestants INVENTED the doctrine, whereas the Traditional view of Scripture can be dated all the way into the First Century. So to believe you, I must assume that the men who died defending the Faith for centuries were too dense to notice something that is supposedly more obvious than combover on Trump's head.
Upvote
0
You just admitted that Scripture can't cover all of his teachings, but you said that it doesn't matter, so long as it is sufficient. I'm asking you, what is the bear-bones teachings of Christ that would be sufficient? Would one Gospel be sufficient, for instance? Certainly that, plus a few epistles, is all many ancient churches had access to, as far as writing goes, but it was hopefully sufficient for their salvation. So if we just care about what is bear-bones sufficient, how far could you whittle down Christ's teachings, of those that are included in the New Testament? The problem is, when you start talking in terms of what is "sufficient", you're in the exact mindset of the Catholic doctrine of supererogation, except you are applying that to Christ's teachings; this mindset just isn't Christian, at least ancient Christian.
I think there is no ancient precedent for these teachings. There has to be some sort of precedent. Well, actually, there is a precedent for indulgences, but that's in the Old Covenant. Also, and this is crucial, these teachings don't harmonize with the Church Fathers.
We do adhere to the Assumption of Mary (but not her Immaculate Conception), however, unlike Catholics, we teach that was after her Dormition. That Assumption, however, is obviously not a point of dogma in the sense that Christ taught "Mary was Assumed in Heaven", but we adhere to it as a factual occurrence.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That's a strawman. Scripture was never called into question, what is being called into question is the doctrine of Sola scriptura.
Upvote
0
Linet Kihonge
Shalom
Let's be honest, EO and CC do venerate icons and attribute their miraculous nature to God through the petitions of a Saint (True or False). On the other hand, the fact that there's no place in the Bible that supports the veneration of icons or the miraculous nature from the venerated icons then if tradition supports and explains how to use them without discrediting the miracle as of God's then it's okay. Sadistically, most of Torah never held such high regard of the icons or images as being of miraculous in nature (even if the Bronze serpent performed wonders to the Israelites, God did not like the fact that people burnt incense to it with Hopes they would receive more miracles hence destroyed). IMO God abhorred sacred objects, or objects of worship because through them some power would be exhibited bla bla. So my question is, Because tradition makes it right does it mean it's right with God? And how are we sure that miracles are not of other realms but of the God's? I mean, if he never entertained the use of objects for anything, why would it be necessarily his workings??? 
I know I have just unpinned a hand-grenade but seriously, I don't know if it should be exciting to have prayers answered because I prayed to the Sacred Heart using his icon!!!
I know I have just unpinned a hand-grenade but seriously, I don't know if it should be exciting to have prayers answered because I prayed to the Sacred Heart using his icon!!!
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Actually the TRUTH is what is challenged by man's traditions,
and the TRUTH will not change, ever.
What ever happens to people who accept traditions that oppose TRUTH
is up to God, not man.
Upvote
0
God performs miracles through icons like he did through prophets. When Moses, for instance, parted the Red Sea, we can talk in terms of Moses doing it, but we all know we're ultimately talking about God doing it, he's just using Moses as a medium.Let's be honest, EO and CC do venerate icons and attribute their miraculous nature to God through the petitions of a Saint (True or False). On the other hand, the fact that there's no place in the Bible that supports the veneration of icons or the miraculous nature from the venerated icons then if tradition supports and explains how to use them without discrediting the miracle as of God's then it's okay. Sadistically, most of Torah never held such high regard of the icons or images as being of miraculous in nature (even if the Bronze serpent performed wonders to the Israelites, God did not like the fact that people burnt incense to it with Hopes they would receive more miracles hence destroyed). IMO God abhorred sacred objects, or objects of worship because through them some power would be exhibited bla bla. So my question is, Because tradition makes it right does it mean it's right with God? And how are we sure that miracles are not of other realms but of the God's? I mean, if he never entertained the use of objects for anything, why would it be necessarily his workings???
The Torah was written in a time where idolatry (the belief that something made with hands is consubstantial with a deity) was rampant, so it is a very stressed issue. However, the Hebrews did in fact venerate icons on occasion (see Joshua 7:6, and this particular icon God obviously demanded very serious reverence for, see 2 Samuel 6:6-7), and terminology distinguishing idol and icon is there. The word used in Exodus 20:4, often translated as "likeness" or "form" is תְּמוּנָה (temunah); the Septuagint's equivalent to this is εἶδος (eidos), this is the term Plato is so fond of, and it is generally translated in his works as "form" (let's not forget that this term is also used by Plato to refer to something which is consubstantial with what it represents, just like heathens saw idols as consubstantial with the deities they depicted). This is *not* the same term used for likeness is many other parts of the Bible. For instance, the word translated as likeness in Genesis 1:26 is דְּמוּת (demuth), or דָּמָה (damah) in verb form--this term is also often translated as "similitude" in the King James Bible, such as in Hosea 12:10; the Greek equivalent to this is ὁμοίωμα (homoioma). If we look at how these words are used, the distinction is readily apparent: prophets often used the term "demuth" when describing what their visions looked like (Ezekiel 10:21, for instance), whereas temunah is used to mean a form (man is made in the likeness of God, not in the form of God) such as in Job 4:16, Psalms 17:15 and Deuteronomy 4:12, this term is often used as a stand-in for the face of God, which in Orthodox theology is God's uncreated grace, which is fully and truly God, and which we can behold (unlike God's essence, which is infinitely transcendent and beyond all creatures). So these two ideas are *form* as opposed to the *simulacrum*. Now the term translated as "graven image" (or "idol" in other parts) is the word פֶּ֫סֶל (pesel), the Greek equivalent of this is the term εἴδωλον (eidolon), which is the source of the English word "idol"; it comes from the aforementioned "eidos". An eidolon is an avatar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidolon_(apparition) Now this term is very distinct from צֶ֫לֶם (tselem), which is word translated as "image" in Genesis 1:26--the Greek equivalent here is εἰκών (eikón), source of the English word "icon"; you would used the term icon to describe someone's reflection, but you would never use it to describe someone's avatar (idol). While idolatry (idol + latria) is wrong, beholding icons is spiritually advisable, it's not just a matter of ornamentation, it's far more important. The more you behold something like pornography, the more harmful it is to you spiritually, but the more behold something like holy icons, the more beneficial it is to you spiritually: Matthew 6:22-23. Everything we see affects our spiritual health, either positively, or harmfully, and icons are crucial among the positive things. You are what you see, so to speak.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Men for 2000 years have said completely otherwise,
and
so-called "holy" tradition that opposes Scripture is not even possibly from Yhwh.
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
No, Yhwh did not say Moses is a medium, never, not at all.
That is a criminal offense in Yhwh's Sight.
Yhwh SPOKE WITH MOSES directly.
Another Big difference _ _ _ MOSES OBEYED YHWH.
The icons made up and gathered from other places (not Scripture) and used after the enemy got control of the "church" did not and do not obey Yhwh.
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
You can't even keep history or the posts in english order -
Christ opposed traditions of the religious leaders.
Traditions of religious leaders (source and implementation and practice) oppose Scripture.
Christ opposes all traditions that oppose Scripture.
See? Christ never approved of traditions that oppose Scripture.
Upvote
0
So Moses parted the Red Sea himself, then, and it wasn't God who parted it?
No, but the saint whom they represent in heaven does, and if God is performing a miracle through that saint, it's perfectly reasonable for it to manifest through their icon.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
