Sola Scriptura - Self Refuting? Foolish?

[sophion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas).

thats the original view. here is a more recent addition:

Beyond the Reformation, as in some Evangelical and Baptist denominations, sola scriptura is stated even more strongly: it is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

------------------------

[tonton]

Clear?

[sophion]

Clear?

you know, i agree with that one. it was clearly wrong. hirap lang tanggapin while you are still very devoted. but deep inside you know it is. the born again just tries not to think about it.

[krams2]

ilang beses ng napagusapan to dito

A Catholic bishop defines 'divine traditions' as "the revealed truths taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles, which were given to the [Catholic] Church only by word of mouth and not through the Bible, though they were put in writing principally by the Fathers of the Church" (My Catholic Faith, by Louis LaRavoire Morrow, p. 18).


The same author explains why the Catholic Church believes in these traditions--"the Bible cannot be the sole guide to salvation" because it "does not contain all the truths necessary for eternal salvation" (Ibid., p.21)

therefore ang pananampalataya nila ay hindi buong buo NAKASALIG sa Banal na Kasulatan kung hindi ang Tradition nila katulad ng malapiyestang malapagano ang tema eh Ayos na ayos KAHIT LABAG sa Banal na kasulatan

para patotohanan pa

"Tradition also is superior to Scripture in completeness" (What is A Catholic?, by Paul H. Hallett, p. 63.).

which is in CONTRADICTION to catholic belief in the bible

2 tim 3:15
15 Mula pa sa pagkabata ay alam mong ang Banal na Kasulatan ay nagtuturo ng daan ng kaligtasan sa pamamagitan ng pananampalataya kay Cristo Jesus

kung hindi niyo susuriin ng mabuti madadala kayo sa PANGOGOYO ng katoliko

bakit ayaw gumamit ng ibang salin ginagamit nila ang Salin ng NKJV para patotohanan na ang TRADITION nila eh TAMA

So what about the verse in which he teaches to "stand fast and hold the traditions" (II Thess. 2:15)?

Was the 'traditions' referred to the same with what the Catholic Church has clung to through the centuries?

Notice that the verse states, "...stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (NKJV, emphasis ours).

Remember that Catholic traditions, as defined by Catholic authorities themselves, were given or handed down only by word of mouth--not through epistles or letters.

Clearly, the traditions mentioned in the verse do not refer to those being advocated by the Catholic Church.



Take note how other versions of the Bible render the same verse:





"...Strongly hold to the teachings which you were taught, whether by word or by our letter" (King James II Version, emphasis ours).



"...Stand firm and hold on to those truths which we taught you, both in our preaching and in our letter" (TEV, emphasis ours).

eh anong sabi ng BIBLE sa Tradition ng Katoliko?

"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8, Ibid.).

WAG PALILINLANG, PALOLOKO, PAGOGOYO sa aral ng KATOLIKO

uki payn sa olrayts kaching!

[tonton]

you know, i agree with that one. it was clearly wrong. hirap lang tanggapin while you are still very devoted. but deep inside you know it is. the born again just tries not to think about it.

Hehehe... kung aaminin lang nila sa kanilang mga puso na magulo ang biblia at is not fit for human consumption, they will be set free.

[Ischaramoochie]

sabi sa bible, god is not the author of confusion daw, and yet the bible remains to be one of, if not the most confusing book of all time.

[krams2]

sabi sa bible, god is not the author of confusion daw, and yet the bible remains to be one of, if not the most confusing book of all time.

kaya kailangan ng guidance

katulad nito

... The Eunuch had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and he was now returning. Seated in his carriage, he was reading aloud from the book of Isaiah. The Holy Spirit said to Philip,'Go over and walk along besides the carriage'. Philip ran over and heard the man reading from the book of Isaiah; so he asked,' Do you understand what you are reading?' The man replied,'How can I, when there is no one to instruct me?' And he begged Philip to come up into the carriage and sit with him." (Acts 8:27-31, New Living Translation)

[Ischaramoochie]

so hindi dapat magbasa ng bible kung walang guidance?

[krams2]

so hindi dapat magbasa ng bible kung walang guidance?

wala naman sinabing bawal magbasa sa katunayan pa nga po

New International Version (©1984) Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

kailangan lang may guidance

[Ischaramoochie]

so hindi pala pwedeng bible lang... kailangan may guidance para maintindihan?

[krams2]

so hindi pala pwedeng bible lang... kailangan may guidance para maintindihan?

op kors kailangan may guidance alam ko ang inc eh hindi sola scriptura if i will base sa definition niya ah

Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas).

pero ang sa inc ang paggamit ng bible ang siyang basehan ng pananampalataya na kailangan may guidance from authority


yan ang tingin kong difference ng INC sa Protestante at katoliko, ang katoliko base from tradition etc
baka namisunderstood mo lang ako kala mo i am pro sola scriptura na dinefine ng protestante

ang pinapanigan ko lang eh ang paggamit ng bible as a sole basis which is opposing views from catholic
na kailangan may guidance pa rin

[Ischaramoochie]

yun naman pala eh, so hindi nga sola sciptura.

[stifbend]

yun naman pala eh, so hindi nga sola sciptura.

Boo! Di na namimigay ng ice cream. Boo!

[admiral__cidric]

Krams pakiklaro nito:

Do INC adhere to the principles of Sola Scriptura? Yes or No

op kors kailangan may guidance alam ko ang inc eh hindi sola scriptura if i will base sa definition niya ah

Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas).

pero ang sa inc ang paggamit ng bible ang siyang basehan ng pananampalataya na kailangan may guidance from authority


yan ang tingin kong difference ng INC sa Protestante at katoliko, ang katoliko base from tradition etc
baka namisunderstood mo lang ako kala mo i am pro sola scriptura na dinefine ng protestante

ang pinapanigan ko lang eh ang paggamit ng bible as a sole basis which is opposing views from catholic
na kailangan may guidance pa rin

[superlucky20]

Proper guidance = pastor namin

Lagi naman ganun e.

[tonton]

so hindi dapat magbasa ng bible kung walang guidance?

PUwede magbasa wag mo lang ituturo ang pagkakaintindi mo kung walang approval ni _________ kundi, maiimpyerno ka.

[PgUp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas).

thats the original view. here is a more recent addition:

Beyond the Reformation, as in some Evangelical and Baptist denominations, sola scriptura is stated even more strongly: it is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

------------------------

In a way there is some sense to this, mainly because the religious can be in a situation where like Peter, cannot help but do something he does not wish. As it is written, Peter denied the knowledge of Christ 3 times. He personifies Jesus' warning that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. By all indications, Peter was even ready to kill to protect Jesus but Jesus reminded him that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Anyway, what can a person do if he is made to live out the word since it is the Will of God? Prophesies will come to pass as a matter of Will of God and the faithful would still have to fulfill God's Will even if it means being humiliated and persecuted or tormented by guilt like the remorse Peter underwent?

[Totnak]

the Apostles were sent out by Christ to Preach and not to write, right? thus, by limiting the basis of a believer's norms and practice only to those that were written is tantamount to saying that everything that were taught by the Apostles were accurately captured in written form....AS IN EVERYTHING.....something we all know that isn't accurate at all......why? think about this....

how many Apostles did Jesus originally had? 12 pre-Passion, 11 post-Passion (deducting Judas Iscariot)......how many of the 11 had written epistles or gospels that are included in the Bible we own today? Matthew, John, Peter, James.....who else? if everything that were preached by all the 11 apostles post-Passion and Resurrection were written down, then why do we only have 2 Gospels from 2 apostles and 2 epistles from another 2? strange isn't it?

unless of course if SS advocates are saying that the things preached and taught by the remaining 7 apostles were not worthy of inclusion in the Canon or that their teachings basically mirrors the exact same thing in the exact same words by the first 4 whose works ended up being part of the Bible we have today........but given that the Gospels of John and Matthew differs in styles and audience already, I doubt that the remaining 7 would have exact replica of the same writings.......if that's the case, which one are they going to replicate? that of John's or the one by Matthew?

SOLA SCRIPTURA clearly fails if submitted to the above test......

[OrionPax]

Jesus sent and authorized His Apostles and NOT a compilation of books

The Bible itself will NOT exist without traditions and the Church

[Totnak]

Jesus sent and authorized His Apostles and NOT a compilation of books

The Bible itself will NOT exist without traditions and the Church

exactly.....

no matter what these SOLA SCRIPTURA experts say, the fact remains that the Bible itself doesn't contain anything saying specifically that "The Bible Alone" should be the basis of their faith.....thus, subscribing to SOLA SCRIPTURA in itself is following an unbiblical doctrine......