The Bible vs Eastern Orthodoxy
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
Your arguments were all taken apart in my previous comments, using clear passages from scripture.
We understand salvation using scripture. We don't require a Pope as you imply (and as Catholics explicitly teach). Shame on you for twisting the gospel.
No you didn't and you don't understand what I'm arguing at all. Scripture didn't magically materialize in your hands - it was compiled and kept by the historic Church that you deny. You can't appeal to Scripture while ignoring how the Bible you use came to be in the first place. Watch the last video about Sola scriptura if you care about what the actual argument is. It has nothing to do with the Pope. Such a ridiculous strawman...
You made that "strawman" happen because saying "be your own pope" presupposes that's a legitimate role.
The early church, i.e early christians, maintained scriptures. Did specifically the people calling themselves "Orthodox" do so? I mean surely that's what you guys say, but either way the scriptures are written by the original authors.
I will take a look at your Sola scripture stuff later, but to me that line of thinking is a strawman. It's never "scripture alone", it's God who saves us, by grace, through faith. But one thing it is not, is by ritual, by tradition. That's superfluous.
It doesn't matter if you accept the pope as legitimate authority. I don't either. The point was that everyone ultimately has to appeal to an authority for interpretation of Scripture. It's either you (protestantism), the Pope (RC) or the Church (Orthodoxy).
The Early Church of the apostles you talk about has never ceased to exist (as Christ promised) and it continues to this day. The problem you and all protestants have is that you don't believe the institution of the Church and its councils is guided by the Holy Spirit and is infaliable. But that same Church decided what the list of the books that go into the Bible is. You hold the Bible to be infalliable but if the people who compiled it weren't infalliable then it's possible they were mistaken.
It's weird you believe this, because the OT and its continuation in the NT is literally a tradition that is upheld by rituals and sacraments. Denying tradition is sawing off the branch you're sitting on. It is this tradition of the Church that has produced the Bible (remember that there was no Bible until 4c.)
So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
So yes that brings up the glaring issue that you put a layer between yourself and God's word. You claim there is a need for an interpreter beyond the Holy Spirit. You claim that your church fathers (Popes) are able to communicate with you in a way that you can understand but God's word cannot.
Period. That is the truth. That's what you're saying.
We are saved by the reality of the situation, by God's grace through faith. By God's gift to us. That's not a tradition or a ritual. Period.
Tradition didn't produce the Bible, that is the work of the prophets and apostles who authored it from divine inspiration.
You've twisted everything I've said to fit your tradition and religion. Jesus specifically warned about the "traditions of men". It was in this same context of religious traditions. I'm merely echoing the warning that Jesus clearly gave to you but you resist the truth. Nothing to do with needing an interpreter, it's you resisting the truth in unrighteousness.
You have no leg to stand on against the documented words of Christ himself. "Call no man father", and don't put "traditions of men" on the same level as God's commandments.
Notice he didn't say "God's traditions" or "God's rituals".