No, the independent mind will see that our works are not sufficient to earn our salvation. They will see that it was Christ's love for us that saves. I don't think there's any way they would come up with the several categories of works, each useful to interpret its own passages, that your hierarchy has devised. Sola Fide and POTS are both scriptural and work together. I don't think the independent reader arrives at the quid pro quo mentality.
The very fact that the Protestants need to "painstakingly detail" their invention points to it not naturally arising from the scripture.
We only need to "detail" the explanation to those who have already opted against the obvious. The independent reader would not be in that group.
Christ left no scripture of His own, his instruction to the Apostles was to teach and baptize, as if they were Him.
This statement speaks for itself and highlights a great difference in mindset.
The Christian scripture lacks for most part the prophetic tone; much of it is written for private consumption.
I would agree that would be the only way to arrive at many Catholic conclusions. However, such a view also sets up a class system among believers and guarantees that the "workers are few". I believe the scriptures are meant to be inclusionary instead of exclusionary.
There is no scipture that would say that the scripture alone is sufficient for the discovery of all the truth necessary for salvation.
What truth(s) are lacking in scripture for salvation? This would make scripture a mere accessory to the uninspired words of men.
There is no scripture that would support the perspicuity of the scripture, but there are passages warning against just such assumption.
There is plenty of scripture, but perhaps none that you would accept. :
Deut 30:11-14 : 11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
From this are we to conclude that "some" of God's commandments are perspicuous, yet others are completely indecipherable, except to the men who claim they are the only ones who know the "real" truth?
2 Cor 1:13-14 : 13 For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, 14 as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Your view also contradicts 2 Tim. 3, since it would not be the scripture which was profitable, but only the on-high interpretation of it by the hierarchy. The scripture by itself would be virtually useless.
AMEN BRO.
THX.
"Your view also contradicts 2 Tim. 3, since it would not be the scripture which was profitable, but only the on-high interpretation of it by the hierarchy. The scripture by itself would be virtually useless."
This isn't even remotely true of Orthodox theology. Such dogma as exists, exists because the People of God have accepted it and lived it out, such doctrines and beliefs as are expressed in the consensus patrum are beliefs of The Church because there is indeed a consensus of understanding and interpretation among the Fathers and those are likewise accepted by the People of God. Time and again in Eastern Christianity hierarchs have espoused heretical doctrines but in the end, the "orthodoxy" of belief in The Church has prevailed. Our hierarchs don't tell us what to believe, The Church does. That's how the Holy Spirit works and has worked in The Church since Pentecost.
Works are definitely not sufficient, but the independent mind will read that "not by faith alone are ye saved" and conclude just that. It will also see that the works that are not salvific refer to circumcision or "boast" in the scripture.
This statement ["Christ left no scripture of His own, his instruction to the Apostles was to teach and baptize, as if they were Him"] speaks for itself and highlights a great difference in mindset
This statement is plain fact and plain scripture. You don't recognize it?
I believe the scriptures are meant to be inclusionary instead of exclusionary.
"Catholic" is the word you are looking for. Still, again I stated a plain fact: the New Testament for the most part is written to specific churches and individuals and avoid prophetic or theological-academic tone.
are we to conclude that "some" of God's commandments are perspicuous, yet others are completely indecipherable, except to the men who claim they are the only ones who know the "real" truth?
Why, yes, -- perhaps not completely undecipherable, but allowing for multiple interpretations. It is in fact, said so in the scripture: "To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables" (Mark 4:11); "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20).
2 Cor 1:13-14 [...] Your view also contradicts 2 Tim. 3, since it would not be the scripture which was profitable, but only the on-high interpretation of it by the hierarchy. The scripture by itself would be virtually useless.
In that passage from 2 Corinthians St. Paul merely says that his previous letter to the same church was clear. It cannot be extended to everything St. Paul wrote because, again, the scripture contains a warning about his lack of perspiciuty:
"15 ... our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3).
Regarding the profitability of the scripture versus the interpretation, is it your contention that the scripture remains profitable if it is incorrectly interpreted?