Prot versus Sacred Tradition in the Bible 

brother, hello! sorry for the off-topic message. do you mind if we translate your videos into russian and publish them on our youtube channels (initially indicating the link to the original)?

​@@disgustingcyclops6423 go right ahead

Lose the avatar man Cringe

Lol imagine quoting from NIV 🧐😂

This is not what is being conveyed at all. The Good News is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became man and dwelled on earth among us and was crucified in order that man would be reconciled to God and become inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven. How would could read the Scriptures (in their entirety, not just a single book) and come to the conclusion that our salvation is through simply confessing Christ with our lips at some point in time is absurd and outright false. Why on earth does St. Paul tell us to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling?" if the Christian faith is nothing more than a proposition we assent to? Why would Christ call it "the narrow path" that few will find? Why would St. Paul tell us that we must suffer with Christ in order to be raised with Him? Salvation means taking up our Cross and following Christ, just as He commanded us to. He instructed us to pray, to fast (multiple times in the Scriptures), to deny ourselves, to clothe the poor, to be hospitable to our neighbor, to partake of His Body and Blood, and to obey our spiritual authorities (i.e. the Church He established). The Good News is that God's Grace is a free an unwarranted gift. We must, however, "finish the race" as Christ commanded. Even asking to question "what's the minimum I need to do to be saved" is such a wrongheaded approach contrary to the Scriptures. We can't "do" anything to earn our salvation. But if we love Christ Jesus and truly believe He is Lord, we do as He commands and walk with Him.

Sola Scripturists will affirm traditions which the individual believer thinks matches up with scripture. The issue is when another believer comes along and uses scripture to justify an opposing tradition. There is no arbiter of which tradition is correct. You can't just go back to the text, because the traditions derived from the text are what is in question. The epistemic issue cannot be solved without the normative authority of a living church with some kind of ecclesiastical structure.

@@seraphim95 Well, the issue, in some sense, is still not resolved, because you have to go back to a text or some decree and, with your judgment, come to a determination. Don't imagine this isn't a problem for you, too.

​@@seraphim95 When 'sola scripturists' see Jesus command 'take and eat, take and drink' we affirm the older traditions of the church to consume the elements (in both kinds) rather than pray to them. 'Sola scriptura' is practiced in the EO when they say that Tradition is by definition aligned with Scripture (that Scripture doesn't oppose Tradition). For 'sola scriptura' names the Word of God as supreme authority, infallible and inerrant; preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures by the Church; that the Word of God standardises all other authorities (councils, sermons, liturgies, etc.) and if another authority is understood as contrary to God's Word, that authority is dismissed in that part (like the usage of Tertullian and Origen despite their later heresy, or the condemnation of St Justin Martyr's chiliasm, or the translation of liturgies). Simply it's an attempt to humbly submit to Christ, the Word incarnate, and the Holy Spirit who preserves scripture and the traditions despite demonic influence (as seen in phyletism or the Jesuit refusal to condemn homosexuality). Of course the proud can twist it, just as the proud have set up false councils, preached lies or set themselves up as bishop/pope (like the so called 'pornocracy'); yet that's the sin of pride rather than the principle of 'sola scriptura'. An example, Lutheran pastors in my synod are required to promise to God and the synod that they will submit to the Book of Concord (a tradition) as a true and right exposition of Scripture and publicly uphold the teachings (traditions) of our synod. If they refuse they are defrocked; that is not a tradition based on individual understanding.

I agree that there will always be a level of epistemic uncertitude. The question is does Scripture meet the bar of perspicuity as the dogmas of the Church do. I would argue that reading Scripture in light of the mind of the historic Church leads to more certitude and coherency. But doing that acknowledges a historic Church which has the authority to interpret Scripture infallibly.

@@seraphim95 And, where does this acknowledgement come from? If you say "From Scripture" you give up the point, as I have to believe an authoritative Word of Scripture that attests to this infallible interpretation; the same Scripture then becomes maximally sacrosanct. To believe the Holy Fathers is to believe that Sacred Scripture is sufficient to establish dogma. It is all over the place in the Holy Fathers.