Sola Scriptura

[geoseph]

---

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.

Nice Brownprrrose.

[geoseph]

Why would anyone believe a church? Any church needs to first establish its credibility, before it can hope to assert any authority.

The Roman Catholic Church, being the oldest surviving Christian church, claims direct lineage from the apostles (implying descent from Christ himself), more specifically the apostle Peter, and not only that, they (maybe not all) claim that pursuant to Matthew 16:18, only the lineage of Peter stand to inherent the entire church.

Beginning with Martin Luther, groups began to break away, and they got excommunicated by the RCC. They could no longer claim continuation of the lineage by the RCC, since they have been disowned (i.e. disinherited). And so they need to have their credibility established by another way, which they found with faith, the Bible, and other articles of faith (i.e. everyone goes directly to God).

There is a third claim to credibility, and this time, it is based on revelations by modern day prophets like Joseph Smith and the LDS (aka Mormons) or by modern day messengers like Felix Manalo and the INC. There is an implied lineage in these churches, beginning with the founder. Unless banned by claims of someone being the last, there is also an implied direct connection to God by anyone, if he or she is made of the stuff prophets and messengers are made of or simply by having been chosen by God or Christ to do so.

These are perhaps oversimplifications, though it may hopefully serve some useful idea.

I think behind the issue of Sola Scriptura or "by Scripture alone", would be the issue of credibility, which implies the issue of authority or legitimacy. It may yet be another form of the "wars of the churches."

[Malic]

"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!

The church is higher than the bible? if thats the case then you dont need a bible to define your church and that is very dangerous because anyone can just speculate anything,anyways the church is higher than the WORD of God.


Thats how i perceived your statement sir,just correct me if i am wrong.

[Malic]

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.

let me comment

There is nothing wrong with assimilating stuffs,as long as it does not contradict Holy Book authorities,the likes of Moses,prophets and the Apostles.

I mentioned fiestas and graven images to show you my point. That veneration of IMAGES of saints are not actually a tradition from the bible but of paganism, assimilated for wrong reasons.

The difference between Noah's incest relationship and those you describe as barbaric acts between "cultural assimilation" that you mentioned are: During Noah's time the law or the ten commandments was not yet given; those barbaric acts were actually acts of God using human beings as His instrument to punish the wicked,so He wasnt leneint at all,the human instruments were free from any sin and violation just like the electric chair triggerman,he is not bound by the law upon doing the execution; The "Now-cultural-assimilation" you mentioned was done after the law was given, so by assimilating culture that contradicts scripture is now a violation by virtue of the Commandment of God.


who first visited the child Jesus?

[r3roble]

let me comment
I mentioned fiestas and graven images to show you my point. That veneration of IMAGES of saints are not actually a tradition from the bible but of paganism, assimilated for wrong reasons.

i think it's your own understanding bro Malic... because we have a different one and my brothers here already explained our side... it's up to you if you will not accept our explanation..

[Malic]

Why would anyone believe a church? Any church needs to first establish its credibility, before it can hope to assert any authority.

The Roman Catholic Church, being the oldest surviving Christian church, claims direct lineage from the apostles (implying descent from Christ himself), more specifically the apostle Peter, and not only that, they (maybe not all) claim that pursuant to Matthew 16:18, only the lineage of Peter stand to inherent the entire church.

Beginning with Martin Luther, groups began to break away, and they got excommunicated by the RCC. They could no longer claim continuation of the lineage by the RCC, since they have been disowned (i.e. disinherited). And so they need to have their credibility established by another way, which they found with faith, the Bible, and other articles of faith (i.e. everyone goes directly to God).

There is a third claim to credibility, and this time, it is based on revelations by modern day prophets like Joseph Smith and the LDS (aka Mormons) or by modern day messengers like Felix Manalo and the INC. There is an implied lineage in these churches, beginning with the founder. Unless banned by claims of someone being the last, there is also an implied direct connection to God by anyone, if he or she is made of the stuff prophets and messengers are made of or simply by having been chosen by God or Christ to do so.

These are perhaps oversimplifications, though it may hopefully serve some useful idea.

I think behind the issue of Sola Scriptura or "by Scripture alone", would be the issue of credibility, which implies the issue of authority or legitimacy. It may yet be another form of the "wars of the churches."

as you can see that before Roman Catholicism there were churches already being established. Are you saying sir that ROMAN catholicsim is the oldest church?

If Roman catholicism is not the oldest church then i think they must have a direct lineage to the oldest church to be acknowledge as a legitimate christian church. i just borrowed your principle here sir,when you mentioned about breakaways of other churches and how they are not credible because they are not in direct lineage to RCC. Not catholicism sir ha but Romano catholica.

[geoseph]

Wow, you have a chart. May I ask for a link? Thanks.

If I'm not mistaken, one of my bosses (top boss), maybe a member of the Assyrian Church, but he said it so vaguely, I forgot the name. He is from Southern India, where most people are dark skinned, and yet on his family lineage, someone comes up as white per generation, and he's one of them. Their church may have had existed for thousands of years na man tingali didto. You got me interested in finding time to interview him again.

I found this Wikipedia article, for now - Assyrian Church of the East - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Malic]

thats in wiki sir.

[r3roble]

nice research bro Malic... it's very clear in the chart...

[geoseph]

thats in wiki sir.

Thanks for the link.
----

Later found this Wikipedia article with the image - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_%28religion%29.