Sola Scriptura

[baliguat]

---

saludo ko ani.

[bcasabee]

Thanks bro.

[baliguat]

"To put it properly, it is the Church which is higher than the Bible. The Bible was created for the Church and not the Church was created for the Bible. Jesus Christ built a church and not a Bible.
Jesus Christ is the head of the whole Church, so it is only logical that the Church is higher than the Bible."

Salamat bro bcasabee, mao man gyud unta ni oh.... tumpak jud!

[brownprose]

My humble take as a former catholic and an erstwhile student of Theology (ironically from a fundamental and hardline Sola Scriptura school) is that Sola Scriptura cannot ALONE provide a tenable and cogent clarification to the many issues in the Bible. SS is just one part of what we need to know for us to know what the Bible really says rather than use it (SS) to say against another religion like we all see on TV and even in here.

As pointed earlier by many posters here, SS (Sola Scriptura) is in itself unbiblical. In the first place no such word exists nor a prescription thereof can be explicitly extrapolated to settle questions of faith and doctrine. Likewise, from Moses to John (the Revelator), authors were only divinely inspired to write the accounts of God's intervention and plan of salvation than specific intsructions for interpretation. If that was so significant, then we would have read SS all over in all the books in both Old and New Testaments equally as we read the prophecies about Jesus in those same books. It can only mean that the Bible doesn't place so much importance as to how we interpret its contents but rather how we accept it to validate God's presence and active participation in human existence.

But assuming for the sake of discussion that SS was so prescribed in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (as commonly argued by its advocates) "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." did Paul really allude "Scripture" to the Bible we know today in those verses? NOT AT ALL. Remember when Paul said of the Scripture, he was referring to the Jewish Scripture which is the Old Testament since Paul did not have any foresight of the New Testament back then in the same way as all the biblical authors have alluded the word "Scripture" to in their writings.

Also, did Peter the Apostle ever employed Sola Scriptura in his mission to preach the Gospel (in the same way as many of the literalist preachers today) just in case some Gentiles ask him to explain how the Old Testament is to be applied to them or what Jesus really meant in many of Jesus' parables ? Nada.

When Paul and Peter argued about newly-converted Gentiles did they settle things over SS? Definitely not. What happened in fact was that Peter and Paul preached different forms of Christianity. But all was settled between Paul and Peter in Acts 15 where: the Jewish Christians would carry on living as faithful Jews,and the Gentile Christians could carry on living in their cultural milieu, so long as they were faithful to Christ. It can be gleaned that even without SS, things can work out fine if left alone without enforcing each other's beliefs.

There are more than 23,000 SS-believing Christian denominations yet it makes you wonder why these 23,000 have different interpretations! It makes you wonder too who among them is guided correctly by the Holy Spirit or have used SS properly?

*Sighs* I'd rather trouble myself promoting Christianity anchored upon God's love than trouble myself interpreting the Bible to promote Christianity that is anchored on one of those exclusive and bigoted Theology.

[r3roble]

*Sighs* I'd rather trouble myself promoting Christianity anchored upon God's love than trouble myself interpreting the Bible to promote Christianity that is anchored on one of those exclusive and bigoted Theology.

amen bro brownprose...

[Malic]

I have nothing more to say since i am not a christian. My only point was only to share my point of view on how one should treat Revealed Scriptures.That it should be above the organized body of believers and should be the final authority when it comes to matters of faith and jurisprudence. In other words, any traditions and interpretations by any scholars that contradicts the Holy book should be rejected. Thats how we do it in Islam.

We treat scriptures as sacred. Its a revelation coming from God,correct? Is that how most catholics or christians treat the bible? So it is only logical to give importance to what is written and accept it as the final authority. Of course scholars must interpret it for us,but tere are cases that we dont need to be told what to do to a certain scripture specially if the verse is self-explanatory.

[Malic]

@Malic

is it true the muslims also have a devotion to the Virgin Mary?

if devotion means, we treating her as the mother of God, the answer is no sir.

[Malic]

Yeah, you got a point regarding doing something to understand the word of God. But the Church has already done this thing for almost 2000 years, there is no reason for me to duplicate their work. And if given that the Catholic Church is wrong, what Christian church do you think I will join next? Remember, there are thousands of them. I don't think my lifetime would be enough to scrutinized each of them just know which church has the real truth. Besides none of the other Christian churches claims authority over the Bible, so that settles the issue for me.

To put it properly, it is the Church which is higher than the Bible. The Bible was created for the Church and not the Church was created for the Bible. Jesus Christ built a church and not a Bible.
Jesus Christ is the head of the whole Church, so it is only logical that the Church is higher than the Bible.


Yes, I myself has read something about it in the Bible. But that too is subject to interpretation because it is not presented in black and white by the Bible.
Anyway, try to read this link. This article presents a highly intellectual discussion regarding veneration of saints and images.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Veneration of Images



No problem.

You dont need to duplicate their work because doing so would only result to more of "tradition contradicting scriptures".

What you need to do is read your Holy Book. Never in your Holy book by verse or example shows veneration to IMAGES of different saints. The history of image worship can be trace back to a time where pagan religion and christianity was competing for who gets the most followers. Sadly the church of that time went far to a point of duplicating pagan fiestas then to carving images duplicating pagan gods. I read a book and it says there in effect that inorder not to dissatisfy the pagan converts to christianity they had to gave them some pagan atmosphere in christianity. Like...during december the pagan temples are in joyous mood because they are celebrating the birth of a pagan god, so inorder to satisfy the pagan converts kay basin masuya sila sa festive spirit christian leaders also declared december as the birth of Jesus(pbuh). Same thing happened with the holy week and other major fiestas. Even priests will agree that some rituals and traditions, tho not put on record, get its influence from paganism.

As ive said before if IMAGE veneration is so important,Jesus as a SOn of God,according to your tradition,saw God's FACE. To Honor Image veneration HE could have carve the image of God and pronounce to the people "Here is the exact replica of your God, venerate this image and you are like worshipping the real God". But we dont find it there in your Holy book.

Catholic apologists cant produce any verse or scene from the bible where IMAGE veneration is approved or done by example. Tho they can come up with semantics on why the word "worship" and "adore" found in the ten commandments should not be interpreted as how it appears in the eye.


and about the link you gave...i have here also a link done by scholars of the reformist,it contain a very strong arguments too but since this is not about "Hermenuetics of deuteronomy from the perspective of catholics and reformist". i will withhold the link.

and...i did said before that by definiton, and this is also a brief response to the link you gave, Veneration asnd worship can appear to be different but by practice it all looks the same.

So my final take and this will really be the last,hehe. Sola Scriptura should be consider to avoid adulteration and innovations in the scriptures w/c most of you claim as the Word of God.

[oTnur]

I have nothing more to say since i am not a christian. My only point was only to share my point of view on how one should treat Revealed Scriptures.That it should be above the organized body of believers and should be the final authority when it comes to matters of faith and jurisprudence. In other words, any traditions and interpretations by any scholars that contradicts the Holy book should be rejected. Thats how we do it in Islam.

We treat scriptures as sacred. Its a revelation coming from God,correct? Is that how most catholics or christians treat the bible? So it is only logical to give importance to what is written and accept it as the final authority. Of course scholars must interpret it for us,but tere are cases that we dont need to be told what to do to a certain scripture specially if the verse is self-explanatory.

Many words do not satisfy the soul; but a good life eases the mind and a clean conscience inspires great trust in God.

@brother malic its a long story to tell about Our Holy Tradition and its our Faith and you have your own Faith!

And as a God-believer is a Humble and to interpret the Holy scripture must end to Love God not self-love.

Have a nice day!

[bcasabee]

Hi Malic,
I think this is beside the point already. There is such thing as cultural diversity. Just because people had ways other than our own, we can call them names already, that's discrimination, and that is where all wars and carnage begins. During the time of Noah, they had incest relationship with his relatives. If you will read the Old Testament, lots of barbaric acts were done in the name of God. Was there something wrong with that in there time? So God was forgiving, lenient and understanding to them. Enter now cultural assimilations, is it bad to assimilate fiestas? Is it bad to assimilate the practice of creating images of Holy objects? If God was understanding, lenient and forgiving during the time of Noah and most of the Old Testament times, there is no reason why he can't do the same now. God is a universal God. In fact, when the Christ was born, the first ones who visited him and recognized him as the Messiah were the so called pagans.

The history of image worship can be trace back to a time where pagan religion and christianity was competing for who gets the most followers. Sadly the church of that time went far to a point of duplicating pagan fiestas then to carving images duplicating pagan gods. I read a book and it says there in effect that inorder not to dissatisfy the pagan converts to christianity they had to gave them some pagan atmosphere in christianity. Like...during december the pagan temples are in joyous mood because they are celebrating the birth of a pagan god, so inorder to satisfy the pagan converts kay basin masuya sila sa festive spirit christian leaders also declared december as the birth of Jesus(pbuh). Same thing happened with the holy week and other major fiestas. Even priests will agree that some rituals and traditions, tho not put on record, get its influence from paganism.