For those who don't believe in Sola Scriptura, what else is important?
Not being stupid enough to buy into that idea.
Sacred Tradition, Ecumenical Councils. For Roman Catholics, Scripture and Tradition are equally important. For Orthodox Christians, Scripture is a part of Sacred Tradition, and Ecumenical Councils are not about adding doctrine, just about spelling out doctrine that was always there (to support this, they show that the Coptic Church, apart from the nature thing, has identical beliefs even thought they haven't been involved in most of the Ecumenical Councils).
>>361241
>believing words on paper
some sort of direct intuition or nothing m8
As a non-Christian, I don't like sola scriptura because Catholic teachings are less faggy than distilled Christianity
>>361241
70 AD doctrine
>>361253
Don't protestants recognize the Councils? And what do you mean by Sacred Tradition?
>>361372
No Protestant recognizes the Councils (if you started reading the Canons, you'd see that.. They recognize maybe a handful of things from them, though.
By Sacred Tradition I mean the portion of the religion taught as Sacred. For the Orthodox Church, that includes Scripture. An example of Sacred Tradition not in Scripture is iconography.
>>361418
>The Church of the East (accused by others of adhering to Nestorianism) accepts as ecumenical only the first two councils. Oriental Orthodox Churches accept the first three.[4] Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church recognise as ecumenical the first seven councils, held from the 4th to the 9th century. While the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts no later council or synod as ecumenical, the Roman Catholic Church continues to hold general councils of the bishops in full communion with the Pope, reckoning them as ecumenical. In all, the Roman Catholic Church recognises twenty-one councils as ecumenical. Anglicans and confessional Protestants accept either the first seven or the first four as ecumenical councils.
>>361483
Oriental Orthodox (which includes Coptics) accept the First Seven, effectively. Ecumenical Councils do not add doctrine, they combat people who try to distort doctrine. There was, for instance, not iconoclasm in the Coptic Church, so whether or not they formally acknowledge the Seventh Ecumenical Council doesn't matter, since they agree with it regardless. They've already resolved that their differences in the Fourth were purely semantic.
Protestants don't accept even the First Council. How could they? They don't have Metropolitan Bishops, they don't even ordain.
>>361241
The theory of evolution
>>361241
The mechanism of interpreting Scripture itself and a fucking recognition that Tradition itself formed Scripture.
Sola Scriptura effectively ditches the mechanism of Scripture, allowing for conflicting messages of the text to be extracted since there is no mechanism in place to regulate interpretation and ensure consistency rather than relativism.
There is a reason why Calvin and Luther hate each other.
There is a reason why Protties have so many differing beliefs on matters of faith.
>>361241
Just knowing Christ is love.
>>361609
>there is no mechanism in place to regulate interpretation and ensure consistency rather than relativism.
The field of hermeneutics is precisely such a mechanism.
>>361614
>just knowing I don't have to make any effort because some guy in the sky is caring for me anyways
>>361532
This. Sorry lads, Christianity got debunked in the 19th Century.
>>361633
Not just that....the interpretation and regula fidei are also components that guides how one reads Scripture.
This means Church Fathers and Councils are to be taken into account when reading Scripture which Sola Scriptura ditches.
>>361674
Regardless of whether most people considered Genesis literal,
A: Many great thinkers in the Church did not, especially the Desert Fathers
B: It was never a doctrine of faith.
>>361418
>No Protestant recognizes the Councils
We do. Lutherans specifically use the Nicene Creed for example.
>>361953
Don't be so dishonest. The councils are only recognized where they agree with a particular denomination's intepretation of Scripture NOT because the Councils are used as a decree to safeguard against faulty reading of Scripture.
>>361922
Why does the NT contain a lineage going from Jesus to Adam? Why does Jesus make references to the Genesis creation myth like it actually happened?
>>361922
>Especially the Desert Fathers
Source?
>>361991
Not dishonest. Also just to correct some of the nonsense posted in other threads:
>protestants don't recognize doctors of the church
>protestants are all literalists
>protestants don't believe in tradition
All of those claims are horseshit.
>>362034
Those claims are of course true.
They are only false if such they are applied to ALL Protestants but a majority do hold to those beliefs. If any these show just how much of a mess Protestantism is.
The last point of course is the definite horseshit and dishonest.
If Protestants really believe in Tradition, they would not be into Sola Scriptura which degrades it, the very mechanism used to uncover the meaning and message of Scripture itself in the first place.
>>362081
Lutheran doctrine: tradition is fine as long as it doesn't contradict scripture
Calvinist doctrine: tradition is fine as long as it directly derives from scripture
None of them are saying that tradition is not a thing.
>>361241
The תורה שבעל פה of course. What else do you need?
>>362101
Except of course they are already saying it in a more polite way.
>as long as it doesn't contradict scripture
In this case of course it means that if Tradition contradicts Lutheran interpretation of Scripture, it is to be ditched. Simple as that.
>as long as it directly derives from scripture
Then why even bother calling it "tradition" in the first place if it is just fucking Scripture?
This like the first also means that if Tradition contradicts Calvinism, it is to be ditched.
These two positions assume that somehow Scripture is a clear easy to read book like a simple "1+1=2" or "Sally ate two pancakes".
Sorry pal, reality is much much more different than this piece of shit, the Bible is a complex book which if taken ALONE can result in crap interpretations. How to counter this? Well....Tradition, the mechanism one uses to understand the true message of Scripture which of course Protestants hate because let's face it, the Church Fathers don't dig into Protestant doctrines.
>>362129
>fucking Scripture
Not nice.
>Then why even bother calling it "tradition" in the first place
Why not? Scriptures and traditions have to be separate?
>These two positions assume that somehow Scripture is a clear easy to read book
Yep.
>>362142
Ok, not even him, but you're fucking full of shit, and I can prove it.
Why don't you read to me Genesis 2:25 and 3:1 and tell me how they related to each other. After all, they're adjacent verses.
>>362155
>adjacent verses have to relate to each other
Huh?
>>362172
Go on, read them. I bet you're completely blind to the implications.
>>362142
>Scriptures and traditions have to be separate?
No but this is assumed in,
a)Catholicism
b)Protestantism
If Tradition itself isn't separate from Scripture then.....there's no point in Sola Scriptura. The Ante Nicene stage of Christianity largely held onto a conception of Scripture-Tradition as one rather than two separate things. In fact they can't even conceive of Scripture without Tradition itself which completely BTFO Sola Scriptura which by demoting Tradition and cherry picking it effectively separates the two.
>Yep
Shit like these simply disrespects Scripture itself.
>>362186
It can be but it doesn't have to be.
>>362177
I don't follow.
>kαὶ ἦσαν οἱ δύο γυμνοί ὅ τε Αδαμ kαὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ kαὶ οὐk ᾐσχύνοντο
>ὁ δὲ ὄφις ἦν φρονιμώτατος πάντων τῶν θηρίων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὧν ἐποίησεν kύριος ὁ θεός kαὶ εἶπεν ὁ ὄφις τῇ γυναιkί τί ὅτι εἶπεν ὁ θεός οὐ μὴ φάγητε ἀπὸ παντὸς ξύλου τοῦ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ
Where exactly is the problem?
>>362027
The Philokalia is replete with allegorical commentary on Genesis.
>>362202
Correct.
Sola Scriptura assumes a gulf between Scripture and Tradition and breaks the unity by subserving one onto the other.
>>362034
>>protestants don't believe in tradition
Protestants DON'T believe in Sacred Tradition. That is what Sola Scriptura is all about.
>>362101
They say tradition is just an aesthetic thing, it is not necessarily.
>>362216
It is not necessarily what?
>>362209
How does that show that they did not take it literally?
I believe the New Testament writings come under the inspiration of God and have been divinely preserved.
Faith, repentance, baptism, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit complete the sufficiency element of salvation along with the written Word of God.
>>361241
If you're inspired: magisterium and mysticism.
If you're uninspired: text, context, subtext, intertext.
>>362202
>γυμνοί
Naked.
>φρονιμώτατος
Most skilled.
Completely divergent terms, which is of course interesting since they're drawn from the same Hebrew root word, ערום (which is of course pluralized into ערומים in the first usage, since it's talking about two people)
The ultimate, primitive root has to do with "smooth", and it's interesting that the idea of clever/skill/deceit is associated with "smoothness' as far back as the composition of the Hebrtew Bible, but that's another matter.
For now, it's sufficient to note that the same Hebrew word has given rise to a translation into two completely divergent terms, the second one very much a value judgment, and given the motif of nakedeness and its importance to the Garden of Eden sequence, the realization that your translator completely jumped over the possibility of "The serpent was the most NAKED of the beasts of the field" detracts quite a bit from your ability to read it.
That is just one, ultimately rather simple misreading if you're not up on your skills in several languages. You still think reading this stuff is easy?
>>362224
Because they're framed as interpretations of how the events of Genesis transpired.
>>362221
That it's not necessary for the religion.
