Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23

[LBK]

Having been to numerous Orthodox services now, I've heard more Scripture read in one service than I did in 10 years of a "bible-believing, exegetical-preaching church," so that part is nailed down.

Well done! Pity our friend Alfred stubbornly refuses to see it.

[Achronos]

theo the Jews were liturgical, there is clear evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls of this.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/baptl.htm
http://www.christianbook.com/dead-scrolls-volume-4b-angelic-liturgy/james-charlesworth/9780664221263/pd/4221262

[LBK]

theo the Jews were liturgical, there is clear evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls of this.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/baptl.htm
http://www.christianbook.com/dead-scrolls-volume-4b-angelic-liturgy/james-charlesworth/9780664221263/pd/4221262

Even if present-day Jewish religious observance were to be ignored, the book of Acts has plenty of instances of the liturgical nature of first-century Jewish worship. And let's not forget the various mentions in the Gospels of Christ Himself serving in Jewish worship. T'weren't aliturgical nor ascriptural, I can tell ya. 

[theo philosopher]

Thanks to everyone for the liturgical lesson and Scripture.

[theistgal]

I hate to say that I am agreeing with Alfred on anything, but in a way, I do see what he is trying to say.

It is true that the Scriptures are the only book (or collection of books) that we can say with certainty is inspired from beginning to end.

That doesn't mean there are not any other books or writings that are inspired, but none of those can be considered in the same category as Scripture.

[Achronos]

I hate to say that I am agreeing with Alfred on anything, but in a way, I do see what he is trying to say.

It is true that the Scriptures are the only book (or collection of books) that we can say with certainty is inspired from beginning to end.

That doesn't mean there are not any other books or writings that are inspired, but none of those can be considered in the same category as Scripture.

But the problem is the actual context that it is used in.

[Cavaradossi]

I hate to say that I am agreeing with Alfred on anything, but in a way, I do see what he is trying to say.

It is true that the Scriptures are the only book (or collection of books) that we can say with certainty is inspired from beginning to end.

That doesn't mean there are not any other books or writings that are inspired, but none of those can be considered in the same category as Scripture.

Certainly nobody will debate the special inspiration of scripture. The problem is that Alfred tries to take that further and claim that scripture is the only thing which is profitable for doctrine (and even later he claims that it is the only thing which is profitable for making a man of God complete), when that is clearly not the case.

[biro]

Alfred interprets the Bible as he wishes. This is not the practice of the Church. No one will contest the importance of Scripture, but we are not free to readjust it to fit our own opinions.

[LBK]

Alfred interprets the Bible as he wishes. This is not the practice of the Church. No one will contest the importance of Scripture, but we are not free to readjust it to fit our own opinions.

BRAVO!!! Give the man a cigar!

[biro]

Thank you.

[theistgal]

Alfred interprets the Bible as he wishes. This is not the practice of the Church. No one will contest the importance of Scripture, but we are not free to readjust it to fit our own opinions.

Absolutely! I'm not saying he's right about everything else. Just sorta like the proverbial stopped clock that's right twice a day. 

[xariskai]

Unfair!

You cannot insist I answer a precise argument, and then refuse to tell me what it is.

Alfred, the moderators are correct that you are dodging arguments without replying. Could you reply specifically to the following? (third request; note particularly the material in bold).

You say Christ taught His disciples sola scriptura (only a written text) before the resurrection -the only written text at that time having been the OT. It seems, however, that the disciples did and taught many things not explicitly found in any written scriptural text, for many years (before there was any New Testament). Were they disobeying sola scriptura at that time to teach so many things not in any written text, and if not how not?

First of all, when Peter and John were before the Sanhedrin in Acts 5 **NO NT BOOK HAD BEEN WRITTEN YET**. Answer me this riddle. During the period before the NT was written, what scriptural passage in the OT (remember, there is no NT yet, but according to you the disciples were already under orders from Christ to only follow a written text) told the disciples to baptize? What scriptural passage told them to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit? (if the apostles were to follow ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT, how could they obey Christ unless he wrote his instructions on paper first??). What OT passage told the disciples to witness to "fill Jerusalem with their doctrine" (which they said not doing would be disobedience to God -without a written text available to prove it) or witness to the resurrection? Were they disobeying God in doing and commanding (e.g. in the case of baptism) these (at that time) EXTRA-BIBLICAL THINGS? If there was no scriptural text at that time telling them to fill Jerusalem with their doctrine, on your hypothesis anyone who does something not recorded on paper is disobeying God, Peter and John were disobeying God even as they claimed to be obeying Him.

As for your apparent claim Jesus taught anyone they would be disobeying God unless something was written in scripture, what do you make of this:

Matt 19:20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Didn't Christ command His disciples to do things He hadn't written down yet? That no one had ever written down yet?

What scripture ever told anyone to write the New Testament? If the authors of the New Testament were writing, with no explicit scriptural command saying "THOU SHALT WRITE A NEW TESTAMENT..." weren't they doing something "extra-scriptural" in that very act, and on your view, disobeying God in the process since writing a NT isn't commanded in the OT?

Think about your absolutism; it leads to ridiculous consequences unless you make literally thousands of exceptions. And yet if even ONE exception must be admitted for any reason whatsoever, your apparent view that one must obey ONLY A WRITTEN TEXT refutes itself.

Esegetically speaking you are importing a hidden assumption into almost every text you cite, e.g. in the Acts text "obey God" = "obey written scripture and nothing whatsoever beyond written scripture." Can you not see the texts in Acts and the Gospels you cited in the OP don't really refer to written scripture explicitly and that, rather, you are inferring this?

Sorry Alfred, but if Sola were true then throw out all of the new testament as it wasnt put together yet.snip

You must explain your argument.

I never said sola scriptura was possible before the canon was decided.

Sola verbum dei is the only possible position UNTIL the canon is decided, then sola verbum dei becomes sola scriptura.

Where does scripture say the canon is decided?

It follows from this verse:

 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
 (Heb 2:3-4 NKJ)

"Was confirmed", past, not present.

It follows only those people could write scripture as God didn't confirm with signs the teaching of anyone after them.

I don't see a reference to "deciding the canon" in that verse. Where is it exactly?

Wasn't deciding the canon an extra-biblical decision? (extra-scriptura) Where does it say in scripture which books to include as scripture, and where does it say "that's all folks, no other books will be written after this one?"

Where does scripture say your (inconsistent) "required interim period" before verbum dei becomes verbum scriptura is suddenly over such that no more books or letters may be added to the scriptural corpus?  

I don't see any reason you have "Dodged" the questions in black' if there is a reason I'd like to know what it is.

[Volnutt]

And don't forget John 21:25.

And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

[Thankful]

Alfred, if I were to say, "All exercise ... is profitable ... that the man of God may enjoy complete health", would you argue that "Only exercise is necessary for my health. All of those other rules about eating properly, quitting smoking, getting plenty of rest are just man-made rules that mean nothing"?

If you read St Paul's other letter to Timothy, you will find (chapter 4):
"8 For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." (NKJV)

Ecclesiastes 7:11 "Wisdom is good with an inheritance, And profitable to those who see the sun." (NKJV)

Scripture is not the only thing that is profitable for the man of God.

Exactly.  Of course Scripture is profitable, just like exercise is for our health.  It's just not only thing that is profitable. 

[katherine 2001]

I hate to say that I am agreeing with Alfred on anything, but in a way, I do see what he is trying to say.

It is true that the Scriptures are the only book (or collection of books) that we can say with certainty is inspired from beginning to end.

That doesn't mean there are not any other books or writings that are inspired, but none of those can be considered in the same category as Scripture.

Certainly nobody will debate the special inspiration of scripture. The problem is that Alfred tries to take that further and claim that scripture is the only thing which is profitable for doctrine (and even later he claims that it is the only thing which is profitable for making a man of God complete), when that is clearly not the case.

I agree.  Unfortunately, by cherry picking verses and taking them out of context, you can make the Scriptures support anything you want it to.  Every heretic has used the Scriptures to supposedly show that it supports whatever heretical teaching they are trying to defend.  I wonder if this isn't part of the reason that some Christians are trying to put the Scriptures right up there with the Trinity and actually seem to think that the Scriptures and Christ are one and the same.  After all, it is much easier to manipulate a book than it is a Person.  If the Scriptures are the only guide, it is so much easier to make up your own Jesus by just ignoring the passages that you don't like (and this happens all the time).  If a passage doesn't conform to your view of Christ, just pretend it isn't there. 

[theistgal]

Unfair!

You cannot insist I answer a precise argument, and then refuse to tell me what it is.

Alfred, the moderators are correct that you are dodging arguments without replying. Could you reply specifically to the following? (third request; note particularly the material in bold).

I don't think Alfred is able to reply right now, due to moderator actions.  Perhaps in charity we could hold off asking him questions till he's back. 

[Volnutt]

Yeah.

[pasadi97]

1. I hope yopu understand Word of God is Jesus and not Bible:

JN 1:14 The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

2. If Sola scriptura would be true, then there would be no protestant books beside Bible. Also I hope you realize that luther, calcin, protestantism and others are not in Bible thus not necessary for salvation.

[theistgal]

1. I hope yopu understand Word of God is Jesus and not Bible:

JN 1:14 The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

2. If Sola scriptura would be true, then there would be no protestant books beside Bible. Also I hope you realize that luther, calcin, protestantism and others are not in Bible thus not necessary for salvation.

Who is "calcin"?

[Volnutt]

I think he means Calvin.

[primuspilus]

This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP

[Melodist]

This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP

This is actually one of the things that turned me away from sola scriptura - two people using the same exact verse to "prove" mutually exclusive points in direct opposition to each other.

[primuspilus]

This is actually one of the things that turned me away from sola scriptura - two people using the same exact verse to "prove" mutually exclusive points in direct opposition to each other.

Yeah I was actually a huge sola scriptura guy until I stopped and thought about it, while putting aside the usual arguments. Once I realized how out of place they really were once history and a little bit of logic got thrown into the mix that house of cards fell pretty fast.

PP

[JLatimer]

This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP

This is actually one of the things that turned me away from sola scriptura - two people using the same exact verse to "prove" mutually exclusive points in direct opposition to each other.

This wouldn't be such a big problem in and of itself if Protestants didn't also want to maintain a traditional Christian stance on the Holy Spirit, truth, and unity of the Church. What I mean is that in Judaism, for example, the whole Mishnah is basically a series of arguments between two directly opposing viewpoints. But this is the Jewish understanding of truth. It is said the rabbis will keep on debating Torah in heaven for all eternity. But Christianity, while tolerant of wide disagreement on a range of matters, is not open to this level of systematic disagreement on the fundamentals (hence, our history of creedal statements). It's in the Christian Scriptures that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, that we must be of one mind, etc. Protestants acknowledge that. They want to skirt the issue that comes up with sola scriptura of a text being open to myriad interpretations by claiming the Holy Spirit directs believers in interpretation of the Scriptures. The question for me then becomes, why is the Holy Spirit inspiring confusion and disunity. If two Protestants have mutually exclusive opposing viewpoints, it seems to me it stands to reason that at least one of them lacks the Holy Spirit, because God is not the author of confusion. Of course they try to get around this by continually trimming down the list of "fundamentals" as more and more disagreements arise.

[theistgal]

I think he means Calvin.

What about Hobbes?

[Cavaradossi]

I think he means Calvin.

What about Hobbes?

What did Hobbes believe about Salvation? 

[orthonorm]

This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP

Everybody is.

All reading is an interpretation. Within a horizon you will never be able to make fully transparent.

Everyone interprets whatever they understand for themselves within the inarticulable nexus of relationships which bear down up them.

If everything was so obviously, we wouldn't have a million different, billion different opinions within and without the Church.

Sola Scriptura is either everything or it is nothing.

Whichever you choose it is the same choice.

Tradition is Scripture. Scripture Tradition.

This is why EO needs a real engagement with real "Western" thinking.

The alfies of the world wouldn't be so troubling and their claims would fail at the level of ontology, but so would most of the counter-arguments traditionally given, as they are just the other side of the coin.

Tradition only exists within Scripture and Scripture within Tradition.

Time to say good-bye to those "Western" dualisms.

You are welcome.

[akimori makoto]

This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP

Everybody is.

All reading is an interpretation. Within a horizon you will never be able to make fully transparent.

Everyone interprets whatever they understand for themselves within the inarticulable nexus of relationships which bear down up them.

If everything was so obviously, we wouldn't have a million different, billion different opinions within and without the Church.

Sola Scriptura is either everything or it is nothing.

Whichever you choose it is the same choice.

Tradition is Scripture. Scripture Tradition.

This is why EO needs a real engagement with real "Western" thinking.

The alfies of the world wouldn't be so troubling and their claims would fail at the level of ontology, but so would most of the counter-arguments traditionally given, as they are just the other side of the coin.

Tradition only exists within Scripture and Scripture within Tradition.

Time to say good-bye to those "Western" dualisms.

You are welcome.

You might be making a more rarefied point than I am capable of grasping at this time of the morning, but I have always taken the view that the Most Holy Scriptures are nothing other than the Apostolic Tradition (or part of it) crystallised in writing. Tradition, then, precedes Scripture, I agree, but I have trouble following the equation in the reverse direction, if you know what I mean?

I don't like it when people say we have two sources of doctrine: Scripture and Tradition. Rather, the source of our doctrine is the Apostolic Tradition alone, of which the Holy Scriptures are, inextricably, inevitably and irreversibly, a part.

[Volnutt]

I think what norm is saying, and this is a thought I've had from time to time, is that Protestants implicitly believe this as well. The problem comes when they perceive a contradiction between one part of Tradition and another (say, icons vs. the second commandment or synergeia vs. Paul in Romans). They react to this to concluding one part of Tradition is defective and so lop it off and retreat to Scripture alone, not realizing that if there was really a contradiction like that then the whole edifice would fall written and oral alike.

Thus within Protestantism a false dichotomy between Scripture and oral tradition is born with one being perfect and the other suspect. norm is saying we Orthodox need to quit buying into this reasoning implicitly as we argue with Protestants, instead we need to return to consistently declaring the oneness of all Holy Tradition.

[akimori makoto]

I think what norm is saying, and this is a thought I've had from time to time, is that Protestants implicitly believe this as well. The problem comes when they perceive a contradiction between one part of Tradition and another (say, icons vs. the second commandment or synergeia vs. Paul in Romans). They react to this to concluding one part of Tradition is defective and so lop it off and retreat to Scripture alone, not realizing that if there was really a contradiction like that then the whole edifice would fall written and oral alike.

Thus within Protestantism a false dichotomy between Scripture and oral tradition is born with one being perfect and the other suspect. norm is saying we Orthodox need to quit buying into this reasoning implicitly as we argue with Protestants, instead we need to return to consistently declaring the oneness of all Holy Tradition.

I agree. I think that squares with my post, though.

[theistgal]

What did Hobbes believe about Salvation? 

I know he wasn't a big fan of Pascal's Wager:

[Volnutt]

LOL

[primuspilus]

Everybody is.

All reading is an interpretation. Within a horizon you will never be able to make fully transparent.

Everyone interprets whatever they understand for themselves within the inarticulable nexus of relationships which bear down up them.

If everything was so obviously, we wouldn't have a million different, billion different opinions within and without the Church.

Sola Scriptura is either everything or it is nothing.

Whichever you choose it is the same choice.

Tradition is Scripture. Scripture Tradition.

This is why EO needs a real engagement with real "Western" thinking.

The alfies of the world wouldn't be so troubling and their claims would fail at the level of ontology, but so would most of the counter-arguments traditionally given, as they are just the other side of the coin.

Tradition only exists within Scripture and Scripture within Tradition.

Time to say good-bye to those "Western" dualisms.

You are welcome.

Perhaps interpret isnt the right word. .....

PP

[FatherGiryus]

The problems with Sola Scriptura is that a number, if not a majority, of its proponents don't understand the concept at all.  That's due, in large part, with its seemingly absolute standard, that of 'only,' with its original and scholarly meaning, 'mostly.'

An intelligent proponent, or at least one who has thought through the matter, would see that one cannot even read the Scriptures without some kind of external reference points: dictionaries, history books, psychological dispositions, etc.  What the wise discern is that the Scriptural interpretation should agree with itself and the Scriptures should not give conflicting interpretation.  Tradition is the preservation of that historical process.  Sola Scriptura was an attempt to go back through the Tradition to eliminate certain abuses of this process in the Western context (not a dig on Westerners, but that's the historical context).

The problem is that Luther's out-loud internal dialog, as with most of the Reformers, led to a great many bab-and-bathwater scenarios.  Eventually, even Luther regretted breaking off from the RCC.  Notably, his own brand of 'Lutheranism' looked far more like the Roman Church that the modern Fundivangelist Pop-Rock congregation of today.

Sadly, Alfred, in my opinion, believed in a great many things that he was simply not able to reasonably discuss.  When I studied at Fuller, I met a number of Sola Scriptura proponents that were super-intelligent and anyone of us, including me, would have a great challenge in debating.  Alfred could not exchange ideas, could not answer questions, and could not refrain from losing his temper.

Pity.

For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.  For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”  But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.  For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.  But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.  Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.  Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.  Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another. (Ga 5:13-25)

This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP

Everybody is.

All reading is an interpretation. Within a horizon you will never be able to make fully transparent.

Everyone interprets whatever they understand for themselves within the inarticulable nexus of relationships which bear down up them.

If everything was so obviously, we wouldn't have a million different, billion different opinions within and without the Church.

Sola Scriptura is either everything or it is nothing.

Whichever you choose it is the same choice.

Tradition is Scripture. Scripture Tradition.

This is why EO needs a real engagement with real "Western" thinking.

The alfies of the world wouldn't be so troubling and their claims would fail at the level of ontology, but so would most of the counter-arguments traditionally given, as they are just the other side of the coin.

Tradition only exists within Scripture and Scripture within Tradition.

Time to say good-bye to those "Western" dualisms.

You are welcome.

[biro]

Father, bless.

Very true.

[orthonorm]

This whole thread is an exposition of why everyone should not be allowed to interpret scripture.

PP

Everybody is.

All reading is an interpretation. Within a horizon you will never be able to make fully transparent.

Everyone interprets whatever they understand for themselves within the inarticulable nexus of relationships which bear down up them.

If everything was so obviously, we wouldn't have a million different, billion different opinions within and without the Church.

Sola Scriptura is either everything or it is nothing.

Whichever you choose it is the same choice.

Tradition is Scripture. Scripture Tradition.

This is why EO needs a real engagement with real "Western" thinking.

The alfies of the world wouldn't be so troubling and their claims would fail at the level of ontology, but so would most of the counter-arguments traditionally given, as they are just the other side of the coin.

Tradition only exists within Scripture and Scripture within Tradition.

Time to say good-bye to those "Western" dualisms.

You are welcome.

You might be making a more rarefied point than I am capable of grasping at this time of the morning, but I have always taken the view that the Most Holy Scriptures are nothing other than the Apostolic Tradition (or part of it) crystallised in writing. Tradition, then, precedes Scripture, I agree, but I have trouble following the equation in the reverse direction, if you know what I mean?

I don't like it when people say we have two sources of doctrine: Scripture and Tradition. Rather, the source of our doctrine is the Apostolic Tradition alone, of which the Holy Scriptures are, inextricably, inevitably and irreversibly, a part.

Maybe I'll amplify later.

[Achronos]

So how about that Byebull

[neon_knights]

This is the one real area that has been tripping me up lately.

I think, that it makes perfect sense that if a new doctrine were to be established, there should be nothing in Scripture that overtly contradicts it. That is what  Sola Scriptura means to me.

At face level, it does seem that Christ's critiques of the Pharisees and their traditions have a sort of parallel to Church Tradition. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but it just seems scarily similar.

[Melodist]

I think, that it makes perfect sense that if a new doctrine were to be established, there should be nothing in Scripture that overtly contradicts it.

Without going into the concept of "new doctrine"...

Who has the authority to decide what is or is not contradictory to scripture when it is properly read and interpreted?

Sola scriptura has nothing to with the bible. It's a denial of the Church's authority to teach all nations "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you".

I agree that doctrine should not contradict scripture, but I also believe that scripture bears witness to the Church's teaching authority.

[J.M.C]

I think, that it makes perfect sense that if a new doctrine were to be established, there should be nothing in Scripture that overtly contradicts it.

Yes, this is true. Reading the Church Father's words on Scriptures leaves no doubts as to their holiness, and importance in testing all things against the writings of Moses, the Prophets, David, Solomon, the Evangelists and the Apostles.

That is what  Sola Scriptura means to me.

But it is not what Sola Scriptura appears to mean in most situations. A perfect example would be the Dormition of the Mother of God. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura might demand "where is this story in Scripture??", when of course it won't be because the Gospels pre-date the Theotokos' repose. By your standards of sola scriptura, the Dormition account does not contradict what is in Scriptures. The same is true of any part of Holy Tradition - it doesn't contradict what is written in the Scriptures. I would warn against calling this sola scriptura though, as it might end up giving you false friends among those who hold an entirely different practice in applying the Scriptures to our lives.

[neon_knights]

I think, that it makes perfect sense that if a new doctrine were to be established, there should be nothing in Scripture that overtly contradicts it.

Yes, this is true. Reading the Church Father's words on Scriptures leaves no doubts as to their holiness, and importance in testing all things against the writings of Moses, the Prophets, David, Solomon, the Evangelists and the Apostles.

That is what  Sola Scriptura means to me.

But it is not what Sola Scriptura appears to mean in most situations. A perfect example would be the Dormition of the Mother of God. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura might demand "where is this story in Scripture??", when of course it won't be because the Gospels pre-date the Theotokos' repose. By your standards of sola scriptura, the Dormition account does not contradict what is in Scriptures. The same is true of any part of Holy Tradition - it doesn't contradict what is written in the Scriptures. I would warn against calling this sola scriptura though, as it might end up giving you false friends among those who hold an entirely different practice in applying the Scriptures to our lives.

No, the Dormition does not contradict scripture.

But the RC doctrine of Assumption does IMO. Saying that the Theotokos could be bodily assumed into heaven without first dying physically is basically placing her at the level of a goddess. Scripture states that everyone dies, and that should include the Virgin IMO.

That is a perfect example of how a tradition can go against scripture.

[J.M.C]

It is an example of the difference between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy on the same subject: The Dormition. Why the false teaching you mention is a tradition in Catholicism and not part of tradition in Orthodoxy reflects two different approaches to authority and Holy Tradition. Your posts here and in the thread you started seem to be more against Roman Catholic "tradition" than Orthodox "tradition". The latter I believe to be Sacred Tradition.

On the tradition surround the Mother of God's dormition, the reason we believe that the Theotokos died is because.... we do actually believe this is what happened, from the accounts handed down to us. It's not because in the Bible it says "everyone dies" that we believe the Mother of God died, but because the tradition handed down to us says that she died and was buried; that the tradition handed down to us agrees with Scripture simply confirms its veracity. Again I will emphasize this is not sola scriptura. Saying "everyone dies, therefore Mary died" and then building up a narrative around it would be sola scriptura (and a quite impossible thing to do).

[biro]

But the RC doctrine of Assumption does IMO. Saying that the Theotokos could be bodily assumed into heaven without first dying physically is basically placing her at the level of a goddess. Scripture states that everyone dies, and that should include the Virgin IMO.

That is a perfect example of how a tradition can go against scripture.

Wrong. The Prophet Elijah was swept into Heaven without first bodily dying on Earth. Nobody has ever said this is wanting to worship him like a God.

It seems almost anything will lead some people to make inferences and put words in the mouths of Roman Catholics.

[J.M.C]

Wrong. The Prophet Elijah was swept into Heaven without first bodily dying on Earth.

Swept up "as if" into Heaven, according to the Septuagint.
That the Mother of God first died before being taken up into Heaven is an extremely important and informative fact about her, and much can be derived from it.

[PeterTheAleut]

I think, that it makes perfect sense that if a new doctrine were to be established, there should be nothing in Scripture that overtly contradicts it.

Yes, this is true. Reading the Church Father's words on Scriptures leaves no doubts as to their holiness, and importance in testing all things against the writings of Moses, the Prophets, David, Solomon, the Evangelists and the Apostles.

That is what  Sola Scriptura means to me.

But it is not what Sola Scriptura appears to mean in most situations. A perfect example would be the Dormition of the Mother of God. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura might demand "where is this story in Scripture??", when of course it won't be because the Gospels pre-date the Theotokos' repose. By your standards of sola scriptura, the Dormition account does not contradict what is in Scriptures. The same is true of any part of Holy Tradition - it doesn't contradict what is written in the Scriptures. I would warn against calling this sola scriptura though, as it might end up giving you false friends among those who hold an entirely different practice in applying the Scriptures to our lives.

No, the Dormition does not contradict scripture.

But the RC doctrine of Assumption does IMO. Saying that the Theotokos could be bodily assumed into heaven without first dying physically is basically placing her at the level of a goddess. Scripture states that everyone dies, and that should include the Virgin IMO.

That is a perfect example of how a tradition can go against scripture.

I'm not aware that the Catholic dogma of the Assumption teaches that Mary never died.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Protestant Discussion (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: Christ taught Sola Verbum Dei, which today is sola scriptura, in Mat c. 23