Is Sola Scriptura Misunderstood?

4,007 Views | 55 Replies | Last: 6 days ago by light_bulb
CrackerJackAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Farmer1906 • 12:50p, 2/24/26
AG
Farmer1906 said:
I am not an expect in ancient manuscripts. I am not trying to play one on TexAgs. But if we're painting the exclusion of Act 15:34 as some one-off mistake on some partial manuscript, then I think we're being somewhat dishonest.

Here are manuscripts that omit Acts 15:34 (thanks, AI):

  • (Papyrus 74, 7th century): Omits the verse entirely. As a relatively early papyrus, it's a strong witness for omission.
  • (Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century): Omits the verse. This is one of the oldest complete NT manuscripts and a primary Alexandrian witness.
  • A (Codex Alexandrinus, 5th century): Omits the verse. Another key Alexandrian uncial.
  • B (Codex Vaticanus, 4th century): Omits the verse. Widely regarded as one of the most reliable early witnesses.
  • E (Codex Laudianus, 6th century): Omits the verse. This bilingual (Greek-Latin) manuscript is sometimes debated in variants due to its Western/Byzantine influences, but the apparatus consistently places it among omitters for this passage (no inclusion noted in sources like UBS or detailed variant lists).
  • (Codex Athous Laurae, 8th/9th century): Omits the verse. A later uncial but aligned with early omission traditions.
  • The Majority Text (Byzantine majority): The bulk of Byzantine manuscripts omit the verse, aligning with the overall Majority Text reading here. However, as noted, a minority of later Byzantine minuscules (e.g., some from the 9th century onward) do include variant forms, but these are secondary additions.
  • From my very basic understanding, these (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, & Alexandrinus) are some of the heaviest hitters when it comes to early manuscripts.
  • Regardless, I don't think the omission or addition of this verse impacts the reliability of the scripture or the church.


    • Like I mentioned earlier. I feel like this is a tool to create doubt and drive division. It's honestly inconsequential.

    The Church is aware of the verses history. I'm sure it's noted.

    Your soul does not hang in the balance.
    Reply Quote
    1 edit
    AgLiving06
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to FIDO95 • 8:00p, 2/24/26
    FIDO95 said:


    There is really nothing else that needs to be said.


    To be completely transparent, I haven't watched this video.

    Trent uses Gavin as a foil quite a bit, but in actual debates, Trent doesn't typically do well against Gavin.

    I suspect Huff would wipe the floor with him because of his mastery of languages, which is an area Trent is pretty weak in.

    ------------

    By happenstance (or maybe because X is watching), this popped up on my feed to address what I believe is the context of this video:



    Trent goes down weird rabbit holes looking for new angles and I think this is one of those. It doesn't appear to hold up.
    Reply Quote
    1
    kb2001
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to CrackerJackAg • 1:14a, 3/3/26
    AG
    CrackerJackAg said:
    I think it's also most important to focus on the fact that peoples that were much more close to these text and the authors made the conscious decisions to preserve certain versions.

    I found the notion ridiculous that we 2000 years later can dig up a random manuscript and say that the people who lived and breathe at this every day got it wrong with zero context as to why there is a difference.

    Not to mention the fact you are quibbling over the most minor things.

    It seems to be in the service of destroying the Bible as a whole rather than preserving it.

    You are grossly misrepresenting how ancient manuscripts are viewed, and how they are viewed by different people.

    In archaeology, sources are rated for their reliability

    How close is the source to its origin?
    How many of these agree with each other?
    How can the bias of the source affect it's trustworthiness?
    Do outside sources agree with this?

    When you refer to finding a random manuscript, you're understating the body of knowledge. When you find a single manuscript that says one thing, but you have a dozen contemporaries from other places that say a different thing, you can reasonably conclude that the one is not accurate. The proliferation of the gospel followed a pathway of "spread the word to all", have them copy and spread it further. This free distribution of text actually does a much better job of preserving the original than does a tightly controlled distribution. When 10 copies were made, 5 went to Greece, 5 went to Egypt, the ability to introduce change by a single person is made much more difficult. Somebody in Greece may change something, and that may take root, but the other 4 copies that went to Greece are being copied by others who don't include that change, and the 5 in Egypt are being copied and distributed there as well.

    The fact is that we have over 5000 copies of the gospel from the first few hundred years of Christianity, and over 16000 copies that predate the printing press. It isn't a "random manuscript", it's a plethora of contemporary sources that have drawn a consensus. Is it guaranteed accurate? Of course not, but it's certainly more reliable than the output of a relatively small group of decision makers 400 years later.

    I'll also point out that the Septuagint, the Orthodox version of the Pentateuch, is the version that forms the cornerstone of every English translation.

    Wes Huff discussing the accuracy of the Bible:
    Video discussing the various versions of the Bible translations over time:
    Video about the great schism. This is interesting because it discusses the theological differences that led to it, highlights the different focal points, the effect of politically founded changes had on theology, and is very relevant to this topic of theological originality:


    Reply Quote
    1
    1 edit
    CrackerJackAg
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to kb2001 • 11:16p, 3/6/26
    AG
    That has little to nothing to do with the point that I was making.

    I'm not questioning how modern archeology and academia verify documents that they find today.

    I'll still trust the Church with this matter.

    It's still pretty minor either way and if you are hyper concerned with needing archaeological evidence to have faith in your Bible then I don't think that's the best kind of faith to have.

    Reply Quote
    1
    2 edits
    kb2001
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to CrackerJackAg • 1:17p, 3/11/26
    AG
    1 Thessalonians 5:21 - Prove all things; hold fast that which is good

    John and Paul's lesson rings true.

    That said, your comment was the one that got me to post, flippantly discarding the value of ancient manuscripts and misrepresenting how they are viewed, but I was answering a lot of things in the thread. The idea that minor difference in theology shouldn't cause a split, yet it was exactly that which caused the great schism.

    As with all things, getting as close to the original text is valuable, don't discount it. If a church position contradicts the gospel, would you prefer the church to change its position to match the words of Christ, or change the gospel? The latter is a bit like a scientist changing data to fit their theory.

    I don't discount the wisdom of men who have spent their lives studying scripture, and stand on shoulders of giants who have done the same. I also don't hold it in higher regard than the scripture itself, and I follow the advice of John and Paul to "prove all things; hold fast to that which is good".

    Reply Quote
    2
    nortex97
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to The Banned • 9:03a, 3/12/26
    AG
    The Banned said:
    The hard "solo scriptura" is the logical end of their suspicion of tradition, whether certain protestants want to admit it or not. Huff's church (wherever that is) will admit it is fallible. Every protestant church will admit this. So their interpretation of what scripture means could be wrong, and there is no way to prove that they aren't. If one of their congregants believe their pastor has erred in interpretation, how can a pastor prove them wrong? All one has to do is ask the pastor why he is so certain he is correct if he is a potentially fallible interpreter. There is no formal way to decide who is correct and who isn't. Holding to a particular protestant tradition is done out of preference or personal belief that this particular tradition is correct. The reality is that it can be tossed aside the second the person disagrees without conflicting with sola scriptura.

    Huff et al are trying to resurrect a protestant tradition of some kind because they realize now just how off the rails solo scriptura goes. Luther had to do the same in his day when the anabaptists went off the rails (from his perspective).

    I think the issues of deciding between/considering the difference of "sola scriptura OR scripture + tradition" is similar to the false dilemma of "faith alone OR faith + works". The way many protestants frame it makes it sound like these are the only two options.... pick one. The problem is their both incorrect. It's not faith alone or faith + works.... it's "faithfulness". Believing in Jesus means following Him (works). And you can't follow Him if you don't have believe in Him (faith). They are two elements of one encompassing truth.

    Similarly, it's not scripture + tradition or scripture alone. It's The Church. The Church is what Jesus established. He did not write a book. He did not tell His apostles to write a book. He gave them authority. Scripture and tradition are how The Church has authoritatively handed on the true faith. EO's and Catholics alike would benefit from pushing back on these false dilemmas

    I agreed with some of what you wrote here but disagree much about the rest, mainly in how the 5 solas are understood by the RCC/EO who do bother to study them (and protestants alike). The Church Christ spoke of was the Soma or body of believers to me, not some specific denomination run out of Rome etc.

    That's a fair summation of this one, imho, from a reformed perspective without getting into the weeds. My defense would just be that at its core, the Reformed tradition highly encourages studious personal studies of the text of the Bible. This doesn't mean a disparagement of the RCC as it exists (or existed during various writers times) but a more fundamental need for the faithful to 'get right with God' and not rely on sacraments (a sacramentalist perspective) as the non-reformed christian faiths (generally) do. That's really the underlying tenet imho of the 5 solas.
    Reply Quote
    Faithful Ag
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to nortex97 • 9:28a, 3/12/26
    nortex97 said:
    This doesn't mean a disparagement of the RCC as it exists but a more fundamental need for the faithful to 'get right with God' and not rely on sacraments as the non-reformed christian faiths (generally) do

    The Sacraments are the means through which we receive God's graces. The Sacraments are precisely how we "get right with God" and how we can know we are "right with God".
    Reply Quote
    3
    nortex97
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Faithful Ag • 9:44a, 3/12/26
    AG
    Faithful Ag said:
    nortex97 said:
    This doesn't mean a disparagement of the RCC as it exists but a more fundamental need for the faithful to 'get right with God' and not rely on sacraments as the non-reformed christian faiths (generally) do

    The Sacraments are the means through which we receive God's graces. The Sacraments are precisely how we "get right with God" and how we can know we are "right with God".

    I don't want to get into some sort of argument here and there are (many) protestant traditions that adopted/carved out some of the sacramentalist perspective of the RCC, but that is not how I view it. I respect that many do see it as you put it, but this goes to the crux of the Sola Scriptura doctrine imho being widely misunderstood by many.
    Reply Quote
    Faithful Ag
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to nortex97 • 10:18a, 3/12/26
    I'm not trying to argue with you either, just making the point that in the same way you think sola scripture is being widely misunderstood you are displaying a
    serious misunderstanding of the Sacraments yourself.
    Reply Quote
    2
    1 edit
    10andBOUNCE
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Faithful Ag • 10:39a, 3/12/26
    AG
    Just curious what your perception is related to the misunderstanding on sacraments?
    Reply Quote
    1
    nortex97
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Faithful Ag • 11:08a, 3/12/26
    AG
    I don't mean to mis-state the sacramental beliefs of anyone, I just don't agree with them. It's a key fundamental split in theology to me, and if I could reconcile it I'd happily convert to EO frankly but I cannot do so.

    I do think putting the Bible/Word (sola scriptura) above tradition matters, much more than some tendentious ideas about a chronology of ordination of men back to Christ which gives a royal priesthood authority to forgive etc. I simply don't see it, and again that's not intended as a denunciation of other views.
    Reply Quote
    The Banned
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to nortex97 • 11:26a, 3/12/26
    nortex97 said:
    I agreed with some of what you wrote here but disagree much about the rest, mainly in how the 5 solas are understood by the RCC/EO who do bother to study them (and protestants alike). The Church Christ spoke of was the Soma or body of believers to me, not some specific denomination run out of Rome etc.

    That's a fair summation of this one, imho, from a reformed perspective without getting into the weeds. My defense would just be that at its core, the Reformed tradition highly encourages studious personal studies of the text of the Bible. This doesn't mean a disparagement of the RCC as it exists (or existed during various writers times) but a more fundamental need for the faithful to 'get right with God' and not rely on sacraments (a sacramentalist perspective) as the non-reformed christian faiths (generally) do. That's really the underlying tenet imho of the 5 solas.

    I've studied what the reformers meant with their teachings. I'm not saying that "solo" was their intent. What I am saying is that "solo" was inevitable. If there is no infallible teaching authority to go along with the bible, there is no objective metric in which we can decide who has a particular verse or doctrine interpreted correctly or incorrectly. It's impossible.

    Look at how the reformation kicked off. Luther and the Church agree that scripture in infallible. The Church says that when a doctrine or dogma on faith and morals has been officially declared by the Church, it is correct and cannot be wrong. Luther says no. Interpretations can be incorrect (even though, ironically, he refused to believe he might be incorrect). But when Calvin uses scripture alone just a few years later to disagree with Luther, Luther is quick to tell Calvin he was wrong. Both guys using "sola" scriptura arriving at conflicting doctrines. A few decades later, Arminius uses "sola" scriptura to arrive at theology that looks much more Catholic. Within 100 years we have 3 competing Protestant interpretations (4 if we include the Anabaptists) They all claim the scriptures clearly teach their view. How do we know who was right and who was wrong?

    There is no reformer version of "sola" scriptura, even in the reformer's day, despite what they claimed. Tradition as a buttress gets tossed out the window whenever it doesn't fit a particular reformer's view on scripture. Luther flat out says his doctrine on justification can't be found in any of the teachings of the Church fathers. Tradition is picked through to to help prove a conclusion that was already personally decided upon. The reformers were effectively practicing solo scriptura from the beginning, even as they publicly rejected it.




    Reply Quote
    3
    Faithful Ag
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 4:50p, 3/12/26
    10andBOUNCE said:
    Just curious what your perception is related to the misunderstanding on sacraments?

    (Forgive the long reply, but hopefully will be worth the read and address both you and nortex97.)

    Generally speaking I think there are two major camps or paradigms in Christianity, Apostolic Christians and everyone else. In the Apostolic camp I would include EO and RCC, and some Anglican high liturgical churches because the faith is not and has never been practiced or seen through a "Bible Alone" lens. The Sacraments are essential to the faith. Our default is not and never has been "what does the Bible say?"…or "show me where that is in the Bible!" That mentality is simply not in our DNA…and not because we are unable to support our beliefs with scripture or that we are in any way whatsoever contradicting Scripture, but rather our faith and beliefs do not come down to us through proof texts with the idea that everything we believe must be clearly articulated in the Bible alone.

    We receive and accept our Christian faith through the Church and her teachings including her Sacred Traditions (oral) and her Scriptures (written). The idea that we would be able to ignore either, or subjugate one to the other, is completely foreign to us. They work together and are never in competition or conflict with each other, and there is no contradiction between them.

    The Sacraments are the means God has provided for us to receive His graces. Throughout the OT God provided and communicated a specific way that we can be in right relationship with Him and how God is to be properly worshiped. Jesus built his visible Church through chosen men and promised to guide his Church into all truth until the ages of ages (forever). Early Christians could find this Church through the Bishops and so can modern Christians today, and through this Church we can learn and know the faith fully.

    Living the Sacramental life is experiential and naturally circular always leading us back to God. We are spiritual, embodied beings and we receive the Sacraments both spiritually and bodily (physically).

    We passively receive the Graces of God beginning with the the Sacrament of Baptism through water washing away our sins and introducing us into the Body of Christ….
    and then Chrismation and Confirmation seal us in the Holy Spirit through the anointing of oils….
    and the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist feeds our body and our souls through the Sacred Flesh and Blood of our Savior, Jesus Christ, whom we receive on our tongues as we come into physical communion with God….
    which therefore means we need to have properly discerned and prepared ourselves to receive God into our bodies which is made available through the Sacrament of Reconciliation where we confess our sins, repent, and receive God's absolution and forgiveness….
    which is also something we seek at the end of our earthly lives through the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick/Last Rites/Extreme Unction.

    When we separate ourselves from God through sin (especially sin that is deadly) we cause harm to our relationship with God and we must repent and seek restoration. In the Sacramental life this process is ongoing and continuous as we seek to conform ourselves and our lives to Christ. The Sacraments are always calling us back to Christ and provide us the path to remain in the loving presence of God.

    The other two Sacraments are vows we make before God in Holy Matrimony (joining man and woman together with God)….and Holy Orders or Ordination to the priesthood or religious life.

    The Sacraments are not works we do to earn salvation, they are the means God prescribes for us and offers as a gift to us and providing our path. The Sacraments come to us through the visible, apostolic Church founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Ghost into all truth.

    God did not expect us to find Him through ancient manuscripts, or historical textual criticism, grammatical nuances, mastery of the Greek language,the proper use of adverbs and modifiers, or proof texts, etc, etc, etc. God did not prescribe the 5 SOLAs and then leave it up to the individual to figure it out on our own through the "Reformed tradition highly encouraging studious personal studies of the text of the Bible" (as nortex97 stated).

    Instead, God gave us HIS One , Holy, Catholic (universal), and Apostolic Church and promised to guide this Church into all truth. Jesus prayed that this church would be ONE. It is only through the men of this same Apostolic Church that what is the NT Scriptures and the Holy Bible has come down to us today. In fact, it is not even possible for us to have one without the other. The Holy Bible is a unique example of Sacred Tradition, and the Church is the protector of the Scriptures and of Scripture's proper interpretation and meaning which is informed and guided by Sacred Tradition.
    Reply Quote
    5
    1 edit
    10andBOUNCE
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Faithful Ag • 5:45a, 3/13/26
    AG
    Thank you for the extra detail, very informative
    Reply Quote
    AgLiving06
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to The Banned • 8:11a, 3/13/26
    The Banned said:
    nortex97 said:
    I agreed with some of what you wrote here but disagree much about the rest, mainly in how the 5 solas are understood by the RCC/EO who do bother to study them (and protestants alike). The Church Christ spoke of was the Soma or body of believers to me, not some specific denomination run out of Rome etc.

    That's a fair summation of this one, imho, from a reformed perspective without getting into the weeds. My defense would just be that at its core, the Reformed tradition highly encourages studious personal studies of the text of the Bible. This doesn't mean a disparagement of the RCC as it exists (or existed during various writers times) but a more fundamental need for the faithful to 'get right with God' and not rely on sacraments (a sacramentalist perspective) as the non-reformed christian faiths (generally) do. That's really the underlying tenet imho of the 5 solas.

    I've studied what the reformers meant with their teachings. I'm not saying that "solo" was their intent. What I am saying is that "solo" was inevitable. If there is no infallible teaching authority to go along with the bible, there is no objective metric in which we can decide who has a particular verse or doctrine interpreted correctly or incorrectly. It's impossible.

    Look at how the reformation kicked off. Luther and the Church agree that scripture in infallible. The Church says that when a doctrine or dogma on faith and morals has been officially declared by the Church, it is correct and cannot be wrong. Luther says no. Interpretations can be incorrect (even though, ironically, he refused to believe he might be incorrect). But when Calvin uses scripture alone just a few years later to disagree with Luther, Luther is quick to tell Calvin he was wrong. Both guys using "sola" scriptura arriving at conflicting doctrines. A few decades later, Arminius uses "sola" scriptura to arrive at theology that looks much more Catholic. Within 100 years we have 3 competing Protestant interpretations (4 if we include the Anabaptists) They all claim the scriptures clearly teach their view. How do we know who was right and who was wrong?

    There is no reformer version of "sola" scriptura, even in the reformer's day, despite what they claimed. Tradition as a buttress gets tossed out the window whenever it doesn't fit a particular reformer's view on scripture. Luther flat out says his doctrine on justification can't be found in any of the teachings of the Church fathers. Tradition is picked through to to help prove a conclusion that was already personally decided upon. The reformers were effectively practicing solo scriptura from the beginning, even as they publicly rejected it.


    I mean...This is just completely wrong.

    But likewise, I could simply turn around and say the inevitable conclusion of Scripture + Tradition/Magisterium is that the Magisterium is the true supreme authority...and that by default, man is ruler over God.

    Reply Quote
    1
    The Banned
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to AgLiving06 • 10:23a, 3/13/26






    Quote:
    I mean...This is just completely wrong.

    Why bother posting if this is your only rebuttal? "Nah unh!" isn't helpful at all.

    It is a fact that within 80 years of the 95 Theses we have 4 (at minimum), distinct, competing protestant views of correct doctrine. All 4 views ascribe to "sola scriptura". The proliferation of these 4 views includes breaking away from a group that was priorly believed to be "an" authority (in a sola scriptura context) because their personal view on what the bible taught differed from that authority. How did they get there if not leaning on their own understanding of what scripture was teaching? How is that not the same thing, in effect, as "solo" scriptura?


    Quote:
    But likewise, I could simply turn around and say the inevitable conclusion of Scripture + Tradition/Magisterium is that the Magisterium is the true supreme authority...and that by default, man is ruler over God.

    God is the supreme authority. God established a Church on this earth that He promised to lead into all truth. The Holy Spirit was sent in order for that Church to be protected from error in matters of the faith. Any truth that the Magisterium has defined is from God. How can man be ruler over God when it is God giving man the protection needed in order to preserve truth and the men involved acknowledge that it is God doing the work? Is the truth of the Trinity from man or from God? Is the recognition of what is or isn't scripture from man or from God? Is the the truth of Jesus's full humanity and full divinity from man or from God? These are all teachings that were distilled from scripture by councils that had heavy dissent from others who said scripture taught differently.

    The NT came from the divinely inspired work of the Church. They go hand in hand. They cannot be separated. For the Church to set itself above scripture would be for the Church to cease to be the Church. No matter how many times that claim gets leveled at Catholics (or EO for that matter) it doesn't work because it completely misunderstands the issue. This is why "Scripture + Tradition" or "Scripture Alone" is so misleading. It's a false dilemma. The Church Jesus founded is the answer.
    Reply Quote
    3
    7 edits
    Faithful Ag
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to nortex97 • 12:43p, 3/16/26
    nortex97 said:
    I don't mean to mis-state the sacramental beliefs of anyone, I just don't agree with them. It's a key fundamental split in theology to me, and if I could reconcile it I'd happily convert to EO frankly but I cannot do so.

    I do think putting the Bible/Word (sola scriptura) above tradition matters, much more than some tendentious ideas about a chronology of ordination of men back to Christ which gives a royal priesthood authority to forgive etc. I simply don't see it, and again that's not intended as a denunciation of other views.

    Nortex97, I would caution you on where you are gathering your information about what Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe and encourage you not to take what you are reading to heart. The "GotQuestions.org" (GQ) site you posted is not reliable and chock full of misinformation and misguided opinions due to their own theological preconceptions and flawed understanding of Catholic/Orthodox beliefs. They present as fact something that doesn't exist and then destroy the position they made up by throwing out a bunch of Bible versus claiming victory, otherwise known as a strawman argument.

    GotQuestions.org said:
    Is sacramentalism correct? Is salvation attained by the keeping of the sacraments? The answer is a resounding no, for, as the apostle Paul wrote, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:89, ESV). Salvation is a gift that cannot be earned. The very meaning of grace is "undeserved favor." To insist eternal life can be gained through ritualism frustrates the grace of God and negates Jesus' finished work on the cross.

    Sacraments are a spiritual and physical sign of God's grace we receive and are not a result of works nor can a sacrament be "earned". We affirm that we are saved by grace through faith, and that no works that we can do on our own would make us worthy of salvation. The Sacraments do not "frustrate" the grace of God but rather the Sacraments are the means through which the grace of God is made present to the believer. Furthermore, Jesus did not finish his work on the cross because Jesus still needed to Rise on the third day, and Jesus still needed to present his sacrifice to God when he ascended into Heaven and was seated on His throne.


    GotQuestions.org said:
    Let us consider these other passages:
    1. "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28, ESV).
    2. "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1, ESV).
    3. "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6, ESV).
    4. "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for 'The righteous shall live by faith'" (Galatians 3:11, ESV).

    1. Amen. Our initial justification is received through the Holy Water of our Baptism and our acceptance into the Christian faith, apart from the works of the law.
    2. Again, we say Amen. I think the issue being conflated here by GQ is justification vs. sanctification. We agree that we are justified by faith.
    3. The Sacraments are graces, not works. Despite whatever GQ is trying to claim GQ is not understanding Catholic/Orthodox teaching and belief. GQ is getting out beliefs wrong.
    4. Again, we say Amen! Sacraments are not works of the law. Sacraments are not works.

    GotQuestions.org said:
    Sacramentalism has its roots in Judaism; in ancient Israel, the rituals of circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, and bathing for purification were common practices. The sect of the Pharisees placed great emphasis on handwashing, not so much for sanitary purposes, but as a ritual against personal defilement. The practice of ritualistic handwashing was seen as a restorative measure against defilement, but were the Pharisees truly honoring God by the keeping of their traditions?

    Christianity has its roots in Judaism. ALL of the Apostles were 1st Century Jews and the early Christians understood the sacrificial nature of worship in a way that modern Christians lack, especially evangelical Protestants. Circumcision and purification washing were pre-figurements of the Sacrament of Baptism. It was through the OT Scriptures and the Jewish faith, including their oral traditions, that the Jews were even able to identify, recognize, and come to know and believe in Jesus. The scriptures the Bereans searched were the OT. The Sacramental nature of the faith goes back to ancient time and the Church has always been Sacramental.

    In the next part we will look at the Pharisees and their "traditions of men"…
    GotQuestions.org said:
    In the following passage, we see the manner in which our Lord Jesus responded to their religious customs:

    "Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, 'Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?' And he said to them, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

    "This people honors me with their lips,
    but their heart is far from me;
    in vain do they worship me,
    teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

    You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men'" (Mark 7:18, ESV).

    Outwardly, the performing of elaborate rituals gave the Pharisees the appearance of piety, but Jesus, knowing the hardness of their hearts, condemned these hypocrites for "making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do" (Mark 7:13, ESV).

    Conveniently, GQ skipped over the most relevant part of this passage, verses 9-12, which is easily missed if you are not paying close attention. WHY would GQ skip those verses? My guess is because the specific "tradition of man" that Jesus was scolding them about was the Pharisees shielding their wealth behind Corban, and had absolutely nothing to do with hand-washing.
    Mark 7: 6-13 said:

    6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
    "'This people honors me with their lips,
    but their heart is far from me;
    7 in vain do they worship me,
    teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
    8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men    ."
    9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 11 But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban"' (that is, given to God)[d] 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."

    The Pharisee's were rebuking Jesus for not washing his hands and Jesus rebuked the Pharisee's for their practice of Corban.
    GotQuestions.com said:
    Sacramentalism is unbiblical, for, if the performance of rites and rituals is necessary for salvation, the gospel's message of grace is made void and Christianity becomes just another works-based religion. As believers in Christ Jesus, we joyfully partake in the ordinances of baptism and communion, but we do so because we are saved and not in order to be saved.

    Here you have GQ stating their personal theology as support for the strawman they just built up and tore down. Nowhere did GQ even properly state the Catholic/Orthodox position or beliefs (although they tried to make you believe they did by pulling something from the Catechism which they presented dishonestly) nor did GQ make any attempt to provide the background for Sacramentalism. The last sentence here is nonsensical to the historic, Apostolic Christian because being saved is not a separate, unconnected event apart from the Sacraments. The Sacraments are the graces of Salvation. The two cannot be separated.

    This is another example of… millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe the Catholic Church to teach.
    Hope this helps.
    Reply Quote
    3
    nortex97
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Faithful Ag • 1:09p, 3/16/26
    AG
    Yes it but the sanctification and dispensation of grace by the church through the variously understood sacraments has a long history. Not worth getting into a battle of soteriology here imho as it's too big an issue for a message board of disparate views but both the history, dogma, and in fact wide understanding of Sacramentalists are not quite aligned with your descriptions, respectfully (my two cents).

    https://sanctorum.us/70-sacramentalism/

    https://gentlemantheologian.com/2022/04/06/what-is-sacramentalism/

    Ultimately, reciprocity means both are required in my view:

    https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20200303_reciprocita-fede-sacramenti-old_en.html
    Reply Quote
    1 edit
    light_bulb
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to nortex97 • 7:00p, 3/16/26
    AG
    nortex97 said:
    Yes it but the sanctification and dispensation of grace by the church through the variously understood sacraments has a long history. Not worth getting into a battle of soteriology here imho as it's too big an issue for a message board of disparate views but both the history, dogma, and in fact wide understanding of Sacramentalists are not quite aligned with your descriptions, respectfully (my two cents).

    https://sanctorum.us/70-sacramentalism/

    https://gentlemantheologian.com/2022/04/06/what-is-sacramentalism/

    Ultimately, reciprocity means both are required in my view:

    https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20200303_reciprocita-fede-sacramenti-old_en.html


    So basically "I'm getting wrecked, so throw some sources out there to try and cover my ass, say it's too big an issue to handle through basic diologue, and move on in delusion"
    Reply Quote
    nortex97
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to light_bulb • 9:17p, 3/16/26
    AG
    light_bulb said:
    nortex97 said:
    Yes it but the sanctification and dispensation of grace by the church through the variously understood sacraments has a long history. Not worth getting into a battle of soteriology here imho as it's too big an issue for a message board of disparate views but both the history, dogma, and in fact wide understanding of Sacramentalists are not quite aligned with your descriptions, respectfully (my two cents).

    https://sanctorum.us/70-sacramentalism/

    https://gentlemantheologian.com/2022/04/06/what-is-sacramentalism/

    Ultimately, reciprocity means both are required in my view:

    https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20200303_reciprocita-fede-sacramenti-old_en.html


    So basically "I'm getting wrecked, so throw some sources out there to try and cover my ass, say it's too big an issue to handle through basic diologue, and move on in delusion"


    "Wrecked". The mature version of "bite me" sounds about right. Why I don't frequent this forum much anymore.

    Sure bud.
    Reply Quote
    light_bulb
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to nortex97 • 9:27p, 3/16/26
    AG
    nortex97 said:
    light_bulb said:
    nortex97 said:
    Yes it but the sanctification and dispensation of grace by the church through the variously understood sacraments has a long history. Not worth getting into a battle of soteriology here imho as it's too big an issue for a message board of disparate views but both the history, dogma, and in fact wide understanding of Sacramentalists are not quite aligned with your descriptions, respectfully (my two cents).

    https://sanctorum.us/70-sacramentalism/

    https://gentlemantheologian.com/2022/04/06/what-is-sacramentalism/

    Ultimately, reciprocity means both are required in my view:

    https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20200303_reciprocita-fede-sacramenti-old_en.html


    So basically "I'm getting wrecked, so throw some sources out there to try and cover my ass, say it's too big an issue to handle through basic diologue, and move on in delusion"


    "Wrecked". The mature version of "bite me" sounds about right. Why I don't frequent this forum much anymore.

    Sure bud.
    Reply Quote
    1 edit
    Refresh
    Page 2 of 2 ▼
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.