How can "sola scriptura" be possible?

[BRIANH]

So for those who do not believe in Sola Scriptura and instead believe in Sola Scriptura/Tradition. What infallible traditions do you believe are essential for salvation? What traditions do you consider to be most important if not for salvation?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So? Is God held to the laws that He gave man?

Are you saying God breaks his own laws? Or does he override them? Which also I think is a bad analogy but better than breaking them. By the way you forgot about the sun standing still.

Here is MHO. I don't personally have any Icons in my home. I don't even wear crosses. However, I do not think it is a bad thing to have pictures dipicting events that occured in the bible or in history. I like Davinci's painting of the Last supper no matter how inaccurate it is (I think he forgets they were jews having a sader). The Icons I see are beautiful and have good artwork. I don't think God has a problem with them. I do get flustered when I see such nonsense as people putting a crown of flowers on a statue of Mary etc... Idols are things of worship. Ie worhsip them as God not God himself. DHK has already stated that pictures are not graven images that cause Idolatry because they are not worshiped. So he can make a departure from pictures and graven images (interestingly the amish using the same verses he does do have a problem with all pictures). He defines worship as bowing down. Ok the ark of the covenant has gold cast seraphim on top of the wooden box containing the law of the covenant. The Hebrews bow down to the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies therefore they are bowing down to "graven images" of creatures in (DHK's understanding of ) heaven worshiping God (DHK would emphasis the point "Do not make a graven image unto me). How is this different then what the Orthodox or catholic do when they bow down before a icon? It seems contradictory. Is the point of departure the worship of an idol as though it were a god or making an image? If it is an image then nothing under creation can be depicted by an image. If it is worship then Icons are not bad unless worhsiped as a god.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

So for those who do not believe in Sola Scriptura and instead believe in Sola Scriptura/Tradition. What infallible traditions do you believe are essential for salvation? What traditions do you consider to be most important if not for salvation?

You still don't have a handle on the relationship between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Holy Scripture is useless without Holy Tradition and Holy Tradition is useless without Holy Scripture, both go hand-in-hand.

Your question is mute...

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

3. Exactly what it says: "any graven image or any likeness of....
--It is speaking of graven images. Likenesses of God that are made "with something," a physical likeness

I'm being sola scriptura here. It does not say in God's physical likeness that is something you've added. Jesus was also totally man as he is totally divine so can we depict his human nature aspect in a picture? This conversation about idols is a good example of the problem with sola scriptura.

 

[BRIANH]

You still don't have a handle on the relationship between Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Holy Scripture is useless without Holy Tradition and Holy Tradition is useless without Holy Scripture, both go hand-in-hand.

Your question is mute...

In XC
-

So are there any traditions which have unanimous Ante Nicene support?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So for those who do not believe in Sola Scriptura and instead believe in Sola Scriptura/Tradition. What infallible traditions do you believe are essential for salvation? What traditions do you consider to be most important if not for salvation?

I don't think scripture alone can define these points:

Homoousios rather than homoios or homoousioi or anomoios

though I don't know where the orthodox lie with Homoosion or homoiousion. Anyway how you view these terms directly reflect on how you read scriptures and understand them.

Baptist have pretty clear beliefs about these but they're not evident in scripture clearly.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Jesus was also totally man as he is totally divine so can we depict his human nature aspect in a picture?

Sure, Christ was a real human being, one that St. John testifies that he heard, looked upon and handled. I/m guessing when Christ ascended and St. John reflected back on his time with Christ any mental pictures John had were mental idols?:laugh: :laugh: See where this logic can take you?

In XC
-

 

[annsni]

Are you saying God breaks his own laws? Or does he override them? Which also I think is a bad analogy but better than breaking them. By the way you forgot about the sun standing still.

Yes - I'm saying that God breaks His own laws. That is because the laws that He gave were to the chosen people - the Israelites. They are not laws for Himself.

And I DID mention the sun standing still.

 

[DHK]

I'm being sola scriptura here. It does not say in God's physical likeness that is something you've added. Jesus was also totally man as he is totally divine so can we depict his human nature aspect in a picture? This conversation about idols is a good example of the problem with sola scriptura.

If a "graven image" or an "idol" is not speaking of a 'physical' likeness of God, then please explain what kind of likeness of God it is speaking of?

Exodus 20:4 "You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: (WEB)

The physical likeness of God, that the Israelites went and made was a golden calf.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If a "graven image" or an "idol" is not speaking of a 'physical' likeness of God, then please explain what kind of likeness of God it is speaking of?

Exodus 20:4 "You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: (WEB)

The physical likeness of God, that the Israelites went and made was a golden calf.

Your point was that man was not made in God's physical likeness because God is a spirit and not physical. Therefore, nothing can be made in God's physical likeness because he is a spirit. The scripture you quoted says do not make an idol of anything in creation (BTW not the Heavenlies as in God's domain. It means the sky). Therefore it is impossible to make an idol in the image of God because he is a spirit not physical. That was what I was getting at. So any idol is therefore necissarily an alternate god. Nothing can physically represent God save for man and Jesus in the incarnation. therefore a golden calf does not represent the lord. And Idol is any god other than God.

If you want to be legalistic about it consider paul discussion about food offered to idols:

4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

So there is no real issue with food offered to idols. Pictures that represnt events are not problematic either. Which are icons.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes - I'm saying that God breaks His own laws. That is because the laws that He gave were to the chosen people - the Israelites. They are not laws for Himself.

And I DID mention the sun standing still.

So God breaks his laws and is therefore out side his laws is he then also outside morality?

My contention is that he supersedes his law.

 

[DHK]

Your point was that man was not made in God's physical likeness because God is a spirit and not physical. Therefore, nothing can be made in God's physical likeness because he is a spirit. The scripture you quoted says do not make an idol of anything in creation (BTW not the Heavenlies as in God's domain. It means the sky). Therefore it is impossible to make an idol in the image of God because he is a spirit not physical. That was what I was getting at. So any idol is therefore necissarily an alternate god. Nothing can physically represent God save for man and Jesus in the incarnation. therefore a golden calf does not represent the lord. And Idol is any god other than God.

No, that is not true.
You are speaking as if man cannot be deceived. But we know that man is deceived very easily. I formerly contended that the calf, in the Israelites eyes, represented Jehovah, for the very next day they held a feast unto Jehovah as they worshiped the calf (whom they mistakenly thought represented Jehovah).

In pagan religions every idol represents a god. You would be insulting a Hindu if you accused him of worshiping a piece of wood, like "Ganesh." He isn't. He is worshiping the spirit that Ganesh represents. Behind every idol is a demon, one of Satan's emissaries. They are not worshiping wood and metal, etc. They are worshiping the spirits that they represent. The same was true of the golden calf incident. They were worshiping the God that it represented, and in that case it was Jehovah.
Thus Jehovah adamantly says do not make any graven images. The command is about idols, as stated in the first command. The second command is two-fold:
First, images or idols that represent Him--God, Jehovah, Christ.
Second, images or idols of other gods that would take away worship of God.

The Catholics disobey both aspects of this command.
They make images of Christ (God) and bow down and pray in front of them.
They make images of others and bow down and pray in front of them.
Both are a form of worship, prohibited in the Bible.

 

[annsni]

So God breaks his laws and is therefore out side his laws is he then also outside morality?

My contention is that he supersedes his law.

Yes - God is outside all of laws for man. Why would He be bound by laws?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes - God is outside all of laws for man. Why would He be bound by laws?

There is a great book by Tozer called the Attributes of God. You should give it a gander.

 

[Matt Black]

God makes lots of laws that He can break.

Jesus ascended into heaven - He broke the law of gravity.

God killed many people on the spot including Ananias and Sapphira. He broke the law of "Thou shalt not murder"

God stopped the sun from coursing over the sky one day - He broke the law of .... nature.

God is not held to the laws that He gave us.

So you're saying that God is less moral than us?!

 

[annsni]

So you're saying that God is less moral than us?!

Is God held to our standards?

 

[Rippon]

There is a great book by Tozer called the Attributes of God. You should give it a gander.

Could you please be a bit more specific?Quote some lines of his which you think have some bearing on this.BTW,though I respect AWT,he wasn't much of a theologian.And he didn't exegete Scripture much.

 

[bound]

No, that is not true.
You are speaking as if man cannot be deceived. But we know that man is deceived very easily. I formerly contended that the calf, in the Israelites eyes, represented Jehovah, for the very next day they held a feast unto Jehovah as they worshiped the calf (whom they mistakenly thought represented Jehovah).

In pagan religions every idol represents a god. You would be insulting a Hindu if you accused him of worshiping a piece of wood, like "Ganesh." He isn't. He is worshiping the spirit that Ganesh represents. Behind every idol is a demon, one of Satan's emissaries. They are not worshiping wood and metal, etc. They are worshiping the spirits that they represent. The same was true of the golden calf incident. They were worshiping the God that it represented, and in that case it was Jehovah.
Thus Jehovah adamantly says do not make any graven images. The command is about idols, as stated in the first command. The second command is two-fold:
First, images or idols that represent Him--God, Jehovah, Christ.
Second, images or idols of other gods that would take away worship of God.

The Catholics disobey both aspects of this command.
They make images of Christ (God) and bow down and pray in front of them.
They make images of others and bow down and pray in front of them.
Both are a form of worship, prohibited in the Bible.

Christ is called the Icon (image) of the invisible God.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: ~ Colossians 1:14-15

Is he now an idol? Should we reject him as an idol of God?

 

[DHK]

Christ is called the Icon (image) of the invisible God.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: ~ Colossians 1:14-15

Is he now an idol? Should we reject him as an idol of God?

Again, your mind is far too narrowly focused. He is indeed the image of God. Does God have a physical body? The answer is NO. If the answer is no, then in what way is he the image of God. BTW, we don't define a word by its derivation or its etymology, but in most cases by its context. In what way is Christ the image of God. It is certainly not in a physical way. God is not a physical being. Again, I reiterate my position: To say that either we or Christ is made in God's physical image is nothing short of blasphemy.

"God is spirit; they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Colossians 1:15-17 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

First, Paul states that Christ is the image of the invisible God. And then He proceeds to tell us HOW he is the image of God.

1. He is our Creator.
2. He has heirship over the universe.
3. He is eternally self-existent.
4. The emphasis here is that even before he became man, the fullness of God dwelt in Christ. He is and was eternally God. And thus this "man" Jesus Christ is made in the "image" of God, for He is God. This is a great passage or testimony to the deity of Christ.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Again, your mind is far too narrowly focused. He is indeed the image of God. Does God have a physical body? The answer is NO. If the answer is no, then in what way is he the image of God. BTW, we don't define a word by its derivation or its etymology, but in most cases by its context. In what way is Christ the image of God. It is certainly not in a physical way. God is not a physical being. Again, I reiterate my position: To say that either we or Christ is made in God's physical image is nothing short of blasphemy.

"God is spirit; they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Colossians 1:15-17 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

First, Paul states that Christ is the image of the invisible God. And then He proceeds to tell us HOW he is the image of God.

1. He is our Creator.
2. He has heirship over the universe.
3. He is eternally self-existent.
4. The emphasis here is that even before he became man, the fullness of God dwelt in Christ. He is and was eternally God. And thus this "man" Jesus Christ is made in the "image" of God, for He is God. This is a great passage or testimony to the deity of Christ.

So then by your logic man himself could not be made in the image or the likeness of God. If this is the case the Torah is lying to us. So I can't trust the scriptures. Don't forget that the discource Jesus had about paying taxes: (my rendition) "Who's image is this on this coin he asked them and they replied Caesar. Jesus then said render unto Caesar what is Caesars and render unto God what is God's" In other words the coin was stamped with Caesar's image and man is in God's image. Give to Caesar the coins with his image and give God yourselves. Man is made in the image of the invisible God therefore if this is not the case then Torah has lied and I should not believe anything in it. And this argument is void.

One of Gods attributes is that he does not sin nor will he tempt or by cause of action to temp anyone to sin. Having a nation bow before the ark of the covenant with graven images of seraphin on top of the box is therefore sin. And God by the very action of having them bow before the Ark caused them to sin which goes against the nature of God. Therefore there is something askew with your understanding of idols.