I believe the author’s point is to identify many obvious abuses that have been attributed to defective reading of scripture.
This is not to say that the author of the article agrees with any of the abuses (or to say that I, as the person posting the article do, either)
However, there are sects that claim “eternal security.” There are sects that claim that the sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality. There are sects that take the Arian view of the Godhead as the correct view. All of these sects can point back to a verse in scripture to justify their beliefs.
It reminds me of a funny line I one time heard from a (Protestant) preacher. He related a story where an atheist used scripture to justify his beliefs. This atheist stated that the scriptures came right out and said “there is no God.” (Of course, that phrase was taken slightly out of context. I’ll let you do the search on Blue Letter Bible yourself to see what the context is)
We believe that Tradition helps clarify scripture. We believe that Tradition (and in my case as a Latin, the Magesterium — the article was written by an Antiochan Orthodox, not a Latin) helps keep our understanding of what scripture is telling us accurate to what was revealed to the apostles and keeps us from going out in left field.
Consider 2 Pe 1:20. “private” is actually the word ‘idios’ — one’s own. The interpretation that is not ‘one’s own’ is the interpretation provided through the light of the magesterium...at least that’s the way we interpret scripture.
We believe that authentic Tradition and the Scriptures work hand-in-hand to give us the authentic, rightly-divided Word of God.
I know, your mileage may vary on this one. But that’s the way we see it.
Correct...And Paul the Apostle was the leader of that sect...And he warns (in the scripture which is the result of the traditions he taught) about religions like yours...
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
I believe the author’s point is to identify many obvious abuses that have been attributed to defective reading of scripture.
I think that is his point too but take issue with the way he stated - The Bible Says, when the Bible doesn't say that.
You have a point in that the different sects believe different things (and of course all of us think we have the correct interpretation). For that reason I think the Bible must be taught chapter by chapter and verse by verse so one can't pick a verse here and there.
I know, your mileage may vary on this one. But that’s the way we see it.
My mileage does vary on the "tradition" part but I certainly admire your way of stating it.
......Ping
Part of the problem here is that the view you attribute to those of us with our roots in the Reformation is that what is described here might be more accurately referred to as “solo” scriptura and not “sola” scriptura. There is a difference.