How can "sola scriptura" be possible?

[DHK]

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.

Go back and read Genesis chapters one and two.
God made man in his image and likeness; that is true.
But what does that mean? Read a dozen or so commentaries and get back to me.

To insist that God is a physical being is blasphemy. It is akin to other non-Christian religions. Mormonism teaches that God was once a man. Is that where you are going with this?

God from all eternity was and is spirit.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Spirits do not have physical bodies.
You can trust the Bible; but you can't trust your interpretation of it.
It is your logic that is very much askew.

Find out what it means for man to be made in the image and likeness of God!!!!

 

[Marcia]

Is God held to our standards?

No, we are held to His.

But God does not break his laws. The "law" of gravity is not a law - certainly not a moral one. It's merely a phrase based on our observation of how things work. God created the universe - He doesn't have to break any laws to have Jesus ascend to heaven. Jesus is God and can ascend because he's God (the Son).

Murder is killing the innocent -- Anninias and Sapphira were not innocent. I would never say God murdered anyone.

Miracles are not breaking laws - they are superseding them. God is not bound by our limitations - that is what I think you are saying.

The reason I responded is because your post made it sound like God is arbitrary and can violate moral laws, which would make God immoral. God is good and morality is based on his character. He cannot be immoral or evil.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

First of all you can't make an idol of God because there is nothing that can represent him accept for Jesus. But does that prohibit us from making pictures or events that have occured that is not idolatry. The section that DHK and others have quoted in context says let us make gods. Then let us have a feast to Jehovah. So the Calf may or may not have represented Jahovah but this is for sure in the context they relegated God to a pantheon of Gods. God himself cannot be represented physically because nothing can describe him. However, God is perfectly represented by Jesus Christ. "When you have seen me you have seen the father." Icons are not idols. They are depictons of people places and events. They are not worshiped. Now if you bring up statures of St. Joseph or St. Christopher medallions I have an issue with these but pictures representing events that have occured or people who have been examples of our faith I have no problem with. The Medialions and statures often in practice have been given special qualities like if you bury St. Joseph's statue in your yard your house will sell. This is idolatry. Showing respect for the passion of christ represented by the stations of the cross is not idolatry. If you want to carry the DHK view to its logical conclusion any pictition of any person or event is idolatry especially if it is of the bible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Go back and read Genesis chapters one and two.
God made man in his image and likeness; that is true.
But what does that mean? Read a dozen or so commentaries and get back to me.

To insist that God is a physical being is blasphemy. It is akin to other non-Christian religions. Mormonism teaches that God was once a man. Is that where you are going with this?

God from all eternity was and is spirit.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Spirits do not have physical bodies.
You can trust the Bible; but you can't trust your interpretation of it.
It is your logic that is very much askew.

Find out what it means for man to be made in the image and likeness of God!!!!

Commentaries to help understand scripture is not sola scriptura. I would be going a tenant of most of protestantism.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, we are held to His.

But God does not break his laws. The "law" of gravity is not a law - certainly not a moral one. It's merely a phrase based on our observation of how things work. God created the universe - He doesn't have to break any laws to have Jesus ascend to heaven. Jesus is God and can ascend because he's God (the Son).

Murder is killing the innocent -- Anninias and Sapphira were not innocent. I would never say God murdered anyone.

Miracles are not breaking laws - they are superseding them. God is not bound by our limitations - that is what I think you are saying.

The reason I responded is because your post made it sound like God is arbitrary and can violate moral laws, which would make God immoral. God is good and morality is based on his character. He cannot be immoral or evil.

Yes this is so true and what I was trying to say. Thank you. At least on this we agree.

 

[DHK]

Commentaries to help understand scripture is not sola scriptura. I would be going a tenant of most of protestantism.

Then I can only conclude that you choose to remain in ignorance of what it means that man "is made in the image and the likeness of God." Pitiful!

As far as pictures of Jesus are concerned, we don't have any. If so, where are they? You mean those ones by Da vinci, or Michelangelo coming out of the Renaissance Period. They aren't pictures of Jesus. They are a vain's man imagination at an attempt to picture what Jesus might have looked like. They failed miserable. They have no resemblence at all of how the Bible depicts Jesus, and they don't know for we have no pictures of Jesus. There were none that were preserved. What you are looking at there is an idol of someone else.

I have a friend working among the Hindus in India. He was given a beautifully painted picture of "Jesus." He thanked him, and proceeded to hang it on his wall. A Hindu friend came in and immediatel went to the picture, bowed down to it and did obeisance! After all, it is the white man's God. The missionary immediately took it down and trashed it. It was a stumbling block and offence to the HIndu. The Hindus know what a graven image of God is. It is prohibited in the Bible. The missionary was given a graven image of the God that the missionary was given, and the Hindu bowed down to it, just as he bows down to all his gods.

Thou shalt not make (unto me) any graven image or likeness thereof. The commandment is clear.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Then I can only conclude that you choose to remain in ignorance of what it means that man "is made in the image and the likeness of God." Pitiful!

Has it ever occurred to you DHK that YOU maybe the IGNORANT one here? Maybe YOUR the pitiful one?

Amazing, the BB will ban a Catholic for nothing more than defending their faith, yet allow a moderator to bully someone into their ideology...but then again, that's the Baptist way...believe as I believe or your an idiot...

In XC
-

 

[Matt Black]

Is God held to our standards?

He is held to His own

 

[DHK]

Has it ever occurred to you DHK that YOU maybe the IGNORANT one here? Maybe YOUR the pitiful one?

Amazing, the BB will ban a Catholic for nothing more than defending their faith, yet allow a moderator to bully someone into their ideology...but then again, that's the Baptist way...believe as I believe or your an idiot...

In XC
-

My position is Biblical, based on the Scriptures.
The reason you call me names (against BB rules) is because you can't refute it).
If you could refute it you would, but you can't, and therefore lower yourself to the base position of name-calling. That is the most degrading position one can take.

Here is the position. See what you can do with it:
Man is made in the image and likeness of God.
God is a Spirit (John 4:24).
A spirit has no physical form.
Therefore what is the image and likeness of God, that man was made in? What does that expression mean? "the image and likeness of God"?
Are you sure it is a physical likeness even when the Bible is clear on the fact that God is a Spirit and has no physical likeness?

Please explain without resorting to calling me an idiot.

 

[DHK]

Commentaries to help understand scripture is not sola scriptura. I would be going a tenant of most of protestantism.

You say you are a Baptist and are a member of a Baptist Church. Is that true?
Do you attend your church? Do you listen to your pastor preach? Does he preach good sermons? Does he ever put any of them in print or on a web page.

A commentary is simply a person's sermons in writing. It does not violate the principle of sola scriptura at all. It helps it. The Scripture still is the final authority. If you want to take sola scriptura to the extreme as you are suggesting, lock yourself in a room, get rid of your computer, don't read this post or anything on this site or anything on the computer. Don't ever pick up a book of any kind whatsoever. Don't watch television, listen to the radio. Isolate yourself completely from everyone, and just read your Bible. The "Bible alone" is what the phrase means. Just the Bible alone. No visitiors, media, audio-visuals, other books, computers, TV, etc. You are restricted to the Bible. Not even a soul to talk to--just the Bible--the Bible alone. This is the path that you are suggesting.

 

[annsni]

Commentaries to help understand scripture is not sola scriptura. I would be going a tenant of most of protestantism.

It would be - if the commentaries told a different story than the Scriptures and we followed the commentary instead. However, it's just someone's study and is useful in our own study. But, NO commentary is even close to the infallability of Scripture and not one word of it (except it's printing of Scripture) is divinely inspired as Scripture.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

My position is Biblical, based on the Scriptures.
The reason you call me names (against BB rules) is because you can't refute it)....
Please explain without resorting to calling me an idiot.

Do you have amnesia or something DHK? Did you or did you not a few post back refer to Thinkingstuff as not only "ignorant", but also "pitiful"? That's not only unbecoming of a "pastor", but also as a Moderator.

Is the Moderator above the rules in name calling? If anything, the moderator should be held in a much more higher standard, since their representing the Baptist faith.

Regardless of what YOU think your position is Biblical or not, gives no reason to insinuate that someone is an idiot. There's no room in any discussion to use such terms. Your problem is that you can't hold a discussion without getting frustrated and instead of knowing when to just drop it or say, we'll have to agree to disagree, you resort to referring to someone as an idiot.

Not very Christlike DHK, and its not very Christlike for me to come down to your level and call you out on it.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

Do you have amnesia or something DHK? Did you or did you not a few post back refer to Thinkingstuff as not only "ignorant", but also "pitiful"? That's not only unbecoming of a "pastor", but also as a Moderator.

Is the Moderator above the rules in name calling? If anything, the moderator should be held in a much more higher standard, since their representing the Baptist faith.

Regardless of what YOU think your position is Biblical or not, gives no reason to insinuate that someone is an idiot. There's no room in any discussion to use such terms. Your problem is that you can't hold a discussion without getting frustrated and instead of knowing when to just drop it or say, we'll have to agree to disagree, you resort to referring to someone as an idiot.

Not very Christlike DHK, and its not very Christlike for me to come down to your level and call you out on it.

In XC
-

I will say the same thing to you as I did to him. Since you choose to avoid the question; since you cannot give a Scriptural rebuttal; since you won't even look at any other resource material and find out the answer to the question, you therefore choose to remain in your ignorance.

I have not called you any names. I have stated a fact. Note that you completely avoided the theological problem that I gave you.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You say you are a Baptist and are a member of a Baptist Church. Is that true?
Do you attend your church? Do you listen to your pastor preach? Does he preach good sermons? Does he ever put any of them in print or on a web page.

A commentary is simply a person's sermons in writing. It does not violate the principle of sola scriptura at all. It helps it. The Scripture still is the final authority. If you want to take sola scriptura to the extreme as you are suggesting, lock yourself in a room, get rid of your computer, don't read this post or anything on this site or anything on the computer. Don't ever pick up a book of any kind whatsoever. Don't watch television, listen to the radio. Isolate yourself completely from everyone, and just read your Bible. The "Bible alone" is what the phrase means. Just the Bible alone. No visitiors, media, audio-visuals, other books, computers, TV, etc. You are restricted to the Bible. Not even a soul to talk to--just the Bible--the Bible alone. This is the path that you are suggesting.

Yes I am a baptist and I listen to my pastor who preaches good sermons. And he even makes sure he has his sermon points on the bulletin so that we can take notes. He does have his sermons on the internet on our church web page. And it has a media so you can listen to it or you can pick up a copy of the tape.

I am not suggesting bible alone. I never have. I'm making a statement regarding sola scriptura which I contend no one really is. This disagreement you and I have over icons (not idols) is represented by both of us and we both use scripture. A key issue of Sola Scriptura. You will obviously say that I'm not led by the HS. However, I have never insulted you, or called you names. You on the other hand have called my character into question and insulted me. Which do you think, is more Christ like? Which has evidence of the Holy Spirit. I can agree to disagree with you and make my points without insulting why can't you?

 

[annsni]

Do you have amnesia or something DHK? Did you or did you not a few post back refer to Thinkingstuff as not only "ignorant", but also "pitiful"? That's not only unbecoming of a "pastor", but also as a Moderator.

Is the Moderator above the rules in name calling? If anything, the moderator should be held in a much more higher standard, since their representing the Baptist faith.

Regardless of what YOU think your position is Biblical or not, gives no reason to insinuate that someone is an idiot. There's no room in any discussion to use such terms. Your problem is that you can't hold a discussion without getting frustrated and instead of knowing when to just drop it or say, we'll have to agree to disagree, you resort to referring to someone as an idiot.

Not very Christlike DHK, and its not very Christlike for me to come down to your level and call you out on it.

In XC
-

"Then I can only conclude that you choose to remain in ignorance of what it means that man "is made in the image and the likeness of God." Pitiful!" - DHK post #286

I do not see DHK calling names or calling Thinkingstuff as an idiot. Actually, it was Agnus_Dei who used the term "idiot""

"Amazing, the BB will ban a Catholic for nothing more than defending their faith, yet allow a moderator to bully someone into their ideology...but then again, that's the Baptist way...believe as I believe or your an idiot..." - Agnus_Dei post #287

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"Then I can only conclude that you choose to remain in ignorance of what it means that man "is made in the image and the likeness of God." Pitiful!" - DHK post #286

I do not see DHK calling names or calling Thinkingstuff as an idiot. Actually, it was Agnus_Dei who used the term "idiot""

"Amazing, the BB will ban a Catholic for nothing more than defending their faith, yet allow a moderator to bully someone into their ideology...but then again, that's the Baptist way...believe as I believe or your an idiot..." - Agnus_Dei post #287

He was actually saying baptist act in such a way as to bully others into their points of view ie "believe as I believe or your and idiot" He wasn't calling DHK an idiot.

On the other hand not all baptist do this. It's an unfair to conclude this. DHK is obviously frustrated that I don't see it his way. That I could possibly hold a differing opinion of what those verses mean. Well, I do. I think I'm taking them in context of the period and the events and what was going on as well as what the scriptures are saying. We have differing opinions about the same scripture! The only reason I see the need for continuing talking about idols vs. icons etc... is to make a point about sola scriptura which is the topic of this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

Its something I've believed in for the past 13 years.

But Im at a point now where Im revisiting everything that I believe, and I just dont see how its possible, especially considering that for the first few hundred years, the bible wasnt all put together.

They didnt have all the "scriptura" to be "sola" about.

And it seems to me to be obvious that "sola scriptura" is problematic. How many protestant denominations do we have now? All claiming Sola Scriptura with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Either the Holy Spirit is confusing us, or maybe we are wrong about Sola Scriptura.

1. Catholicism is the schism-master producing eastern Orthodox and almost all of protestantism.

2. Act 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF THOSE ThINGS spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

They did not say "hey wait -- I am guess that scripture is not complete -- what in the world do we think we are doing here? We can't possibly study scriptures to see IF Paul is right -- we need a lot more scripture first if we are to even attempt such a thing".

Sola Scriptura is not an argument that says all of scripture has to already be written before you can test doctrines of men against scripture to SEE IF they are correct.

Bob

 

[DHK]

He was actually saying baptist act in such a way as to bully others into their points of view ie "believe as I believe or your and idiot" He wasn't calling DHK an idiot.

On the other hand not all baptist do this. It's an unfair to conclude this. DHK is obviously frustrated that I don't see it his way. That I could possibly hold a differing opinion of what those verses mean. Well, I do. I think I'm taking them in context of the period and the events and what was going on as well as what the scriptures are saying. We have differing opinions about the same scripture! The only reason I see the need for continuing talking about idols vs. icons etc... is to make a point about sola scriptura which is the topic of this thread.

I am not frustrated at all. I am astounded that posters on this board resort to name-calling instead of even attempting to refute a theological problem that has been posted to them, and that includes you. Instead of trying to answer the question, you avoid it. You now say I am frustrated. You see the innuendo here. Why not attempt to answer the question instead.

Do you really believe that man made in God's image refers to a physical image?
If yes, where is your Scriptural support for it?
If no, then what does the expression mean "made in the image and likeness of God"?
And how else does that refer to Christ being made in the "image of the invisible God," mean? Is it still talking about a physical image? Are you still affirming that God has a physical form when the Bible tells us that He is spirit?

Why do you avoid these questions, and just cast aspersions instead?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sir, what aspertions have I asserted, and in what manner have I made them? I have only typed what it is that you yourself have said of me. That I am 1. Ignorant 2. that I am pitiful. The aspertions which have been made have been made by you, sir, against my person. I have not insulted you in any shape or fashion.

deleted by accident

 

[DHK]

I shall answer you directly and forthrightly. God is a spirit. I have never denied this proposition. Man cannot look physically like God for God is not a man. God is God. I have not said otherwise. However, does this diminish the fact that man is made in the very image of God? No. Man is made in the image of God. I have never said otherwise. Only Jesus fully represents God to man in that Jesus himself says that when you have seen me you have seen the father.

Odd, I never found a direct answer in your post. You still haven't answered the core of the question that I am asking. You are avoiding it.
What does it mean when it says that "man is made in the image and likeness of God."?
You answer in part: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
Do you honestly believe that the Father has a physical form?