Is scripture the highest authority?

[Received]

Jesus is the Word... Where do you find God's authority outside of the bible? In Tradition? That's man's word.

Yet Jesus makes it clear that he isn't the written word in John 5:39-40:

"You search the Scriptures [the written word of God] because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."

The written word bears witness to the Word, Jesus in incorporeal form, and is therefore not the same thing as the Word. The word is not the Word, and therefore the Word has higher authority than the word, even if the written word also reflects God's words.

The ultimate authority is responding to God through a personal relationship with him. This becomes immediately apparent when you realize how little the Bible directs our day-to-day lives. What job should I take? How should I act specifically with this person? And so on. These things are accessed through a relationship with God, with the Logos or Word. Without this guidance, relying only on the Bible, our lives would be only vaguely directed by principles provided in the Bible, such as to love your neighbor. Principles don't guide a day-to-day life. That's the whole reason a personal relationship with God is needed, which only partly involves the Bible.

This is also why eternal life is clearly defined by Jesus as knowing God in John 17:3. Knowing a person is more than knowing the words that they have spoken (the Bible), and also involves the words they are speaking.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yet Jesus makes it clear that he isn't the written word in John 5:39-40:

"You search the Scriptures [the written word of God] because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."

The written word bears witness to the Word, Jesus in incorporeal form, and is therefore not the same thing as the Word. The word is not the Word, and therefore the Word has higher authority than the word, even if the written word also reflects God's words.

The ultimate authority is responding to God through a personal relationship with him. This becomes immediately apparent when you realize how little the Bible directs our day-to-day lives. What job should I take? How should I act specifically with this person? And so on. These things are accessed through a relationship with God, with the Logos or Word. Without this guidance, relying only on the Bible, our lives would be only vaguely directed by principles provided in the Bible, such as to love your neighbor. Principles don't guide a day-to-day life. That's the whole reason a personal relationship with God is needed, which only partly involves the Bible.

This is also why eternal life is clearly defined by Jesus as knowing God in John 17:3. Knowing a person is more than knowing the words that they have spoken (the Bible), and also involves the words they are speaking.

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

What it says is that the scripture has not eternal life and eternal life is accomplished by coming to Christ. He is the expression of the word, and outside of the written word no one can know Him.

 

[Received]

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

What it says is that the scripture has not eternal life and eternal life is accomplished by coming to Christ. He is the expression of the word, and outside of the written word no one can know Him.

Right, which means that Christ has more authority (is more foundational) than the written word.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Right, which means that Christ has more authority (is more foundational) than the written word.

As much as the spirit has over the letter.

 

[Received]

As much as the spirit has over the letter.

Yes, exactly.

The word of God -- the Bible -- has its authority only because of its author (God), which makes the author have higher authority than the words he expressed. If a king makes decrees, it's the king who has higher authority than his decrees.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes, exactly.

The word of God -- the Bible -- has its authority only because of its author (God), which makes the author have higher authority than the words he expressed. If a king makes decrees, it's the king who has higher authority than his decrees.

That didn't help Daniel

 

[Berean777]

What I'm saying is that when you look at all the modes by which God communicates to human beings (which we can for simplicity narrow down to the God as the holy spirit and the Bible), the highest authority is that which is most foundational, that on which other modes rest to have their being. The Bible without God inspiring it is meaningless, therefore God is the highest authority. The Bible would be the highest authority if God (and his communication with us today outside of the Bible) were somehow dependent upon it.

Again you seem to draw a double standard fallacy in your reasoning. Please consider what you are implying.....that is.......

God the infinite being is the highest authority and when he speaks through different modes all these modes whether written, thought, verbal, visitation, sight etc... have less authority than the infinite being himself.

When you do this you disassociate the authority of God through the different modes from his being and this is the flaw in your reasoning, the Word and his being are one. Don't take my word for it, just believe the scriptures......

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

The matter of fact is that you cannot separate or distinguish the Word of God, that is his modes of communicating his thoughts, where God is Spirit (John 4:24), from his infinite being. The Word regardless of mode of communication and the Spirit being is one in the same, for he is the living consciousness that exists as the I Am. In this regard the authority of the almighty being is indistinguishable from his being and is the being himself.

As it is written God's thoughts are forever......

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life.
(John 6:63)

I put the sentence spoken by Jesus in bold, whereby Spirit and LIFE are presented in different colours to highlight that the Word is the actual Spirit being and is the LIFE source.

Here is the formulae that Jesus presented in one sentence.....

Word of God regardless of mode = Spirit (John 4:24) + LIFE

Please note this formulae also applies to the man Jesus Christ of Nazareth......

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

Here is the formulae.......

Jesus the Living Word of God = Truth/Grace (John 1:17) + LIFE

TRUTH/Grace = Spirit (John 4:24)

It is the Word, regardless of mode that reveals the Spirit/God (John 4:24) and the source of life. Therefore it is safe to conclude that the written word of God the Holy Bible is the highest authority that reveals God and testifies of Jesus Christ (the gospel) (John 5:39).

Let's see who reveals God

17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (John 1:17-18)

The word regardless of mode reveals the almighty being, who is infinite consciousness.

Your statement below is therefore false.....

the highest authority is that which is most foundational, that on which other modes rest to have their being.

In fact your statement below is what actually has happened, where the being has been revealed by the Word, whether living, written, vision, thought, conviction, visitation, verbal etc.

The Bible (word) is the highest authority that God depends on.

Again your premise is on separating the Word from the Being and this is incongruent and totally illogical.

Please consider what scripture states......

35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. (Matthew 24:35)

Don't you see the word is the being himself.

for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
(Matthew 10:20)

Again emphasis is placed on the Spirit being who Jesus calls the Father relying on his word, in revealing himself through his word, spoken through the lips of his sons and daughters. As Paul declares God will be all in all revealed by the word manifest in us, as Jesus would say you in me and I in you.

When you start differentiating the word from the being as far as highest authority is concerned, then you are unwittingly disassociating yourself from the Spirit being himself.

Therefore don't be deceived friend, for the word regardless of mode is God and is the highest authority. The Holy scriptures is God himself.

 

[amariselle]

Yes, exactly.

The word of God -- the Bible -- has its authority only because of its author (God), which makes the author have higher authority than the words he expressed. If a king makes decrees, it's the king who has higher authority than his decrees.

Yes, the word of God is absolutely authoritative, because it's Author is absolutely authoritative.

You cannot separate the word of God from God. Scripture is His divinely inspired word, which He has given to us so that we may know Him. And Scripture is where we must go to seek discernment and guidance, with the help of the Holy Spirit, as God will not contradict Himself. By this we can know what is of God and what is not, and this is of the gravest concern to us in this life.

You used the example of a king and his decrees. Well, because a king has authority, his decrees will likewise have authority, and this authority comes from the king himself. The decrees of the a king are directly from him, which is why they have the authority they do. It is only by separating the decrees of a king from the king himself that you can make his decrees of lesser authority. And this makes no sense whatsoever. Would someone say to the king, "but you are more authoritative than your words/decrees, therefore I will obey you above your words?" How is this even possible? How will you obey the king if you don't recognize that his words have his authority, because they come directly from him?

In the same way, but more importantly of course, how will you obey God if you don't recognize that His word has His absolute authority? Scripture is HIS word, and you cannot obey Him or know about Him apart from it. There is no way you can honestly say to God, "you are of higher authority than your word, so I will obey you over your word." To say such a thing would be to disobey Him and to separate the divinely inspired word from its true Author. If we don't obey His word, we are not obeying Him, just as someone who does not recognize and obey the decrees of a king as authoritative, disobeys the king.

 

[Wolf_Says]

You and other Catholics have repeatedly defended your beliefs with scripture as if it was indisputable authority. In actuality you believe your church to be a higher authority.

Because protestants believe nothing else but scripture. If I am debating, I am going to use terms that you understand and is the common ground that we have: The Bible.

Are you doubting that scripture is true? Do I really need to prove that to you? Since this is all I take to be incontrivertibly true, that is all I have to demonsrate to be true. You on the other hand claim another source of incontrivertibly truth. Multiple Catholics have been asked to prove this other source is inerrant, but have not. Can you?

This is circular logic and goes nowhere. You say you follow the Bible and only the Bible, I ask you to show me where it states that in the Bible that it has to be in the Bible, you say you know it is true because it is the Bible, I ask who told you that the Bible was true, and it is back to the Bible.

Scripture Lesson: Test false teachings against scripture. The church followed scripture and did this. They threw out a bunch of trash. They retained the books of the N.T. that were written hundreds of years earlier. Nothing in the practice is the giving of a higher authority than God's word to the church.

You failed to comprehend my statement. There was no scripture as we know it around that time. All the books were separated and there were many false books also claiming to be true. So I ask you, how did early Christians know the difference between the false books and true books if they all claimed to be true and there was no scripture to test it against? Who had the authority to say "these books are true, and these are false"?

Already argued this same point with another Catholic. Jesus gave us his words. He did not start churches in any sense of what we now understand and use that word to mean.

Kindly look at Matthew 16:14-19 in which Jesus gives Simon the blessing of changing his name to Peter, which (Jesus spoke Aramaic) is Kephas. Kephas means rock, so literally Jesus called Simon rock and stated on this rock I will build my Church. In verse 19 Jesus then gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, and states "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven"

Understanding historical context is huge here. Bind and Loose were Rabbi terms that allowed them to essentially bind somebody to the Jewish faith or loose them from it and kick them out. Jesus took this power away from the Rabbis and gave it to Peter, the earthly head of His Church. This means that, through apostolic teachings and laying of the hands, the Pope (who is Peter's successor) has the ability to bring people into the Church and kick them out. And Jesus said that those loosed shall be loosed in heaven.

You Catholics grab so much authority in this one verse of scripture. Tell me again what authority Jesus gave to Peter in 1 Tim 3:15. Because, we all know that all authority comes from God, and all Catholics know that all church authority comes through the apostle Peter. This will probably escape you because you search for ways to justify your beliefs, instead of searching scripture to formulate your beliefs.

Jesus gave authority to Peter in Matthew 16:14-19 as I already stated. No, Catholics know (or should know, there are bad Catholics just like there are bad protestants) that all authority of the Church comes from Jesus Christ, who started it. The Pope is merely the earthly head of the Church. Nice dig though, making that last claim there. I don't search for anything, because as I said, everything the Catholic Church teaches can be found in scripture. It was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together, and is the biggest supporter of the Church.

Why don't you just admit you can't formulate a rebuttal for my argument? If you really can't follow the logic of my argument, I will make it really simple.

Do you believe that the truths in scripture are sufficient knowledge needed for salvation?

I have, and you have tried and dodged my statements. You are using circular logic to try and prove a point, which it does not.

To answer your last question, yes and no. Yes because all the truths point to the Church and are alive in the Church and through the Church we will achieve salvation, and no because as Peter stated, scripture is not for private interpretation. If you rely solely on the Bible, you only have half of the truth. The other half lies with the Bride of Christ, the Church that Jesus came down to start, the Catholic Church.

 

[Wolf_Says]

In the same way, but more importantly of course, how will you obey God if you don't recognize that His word has His absolute authority? Scripture is HIS word, and you cannot obey Him or know about Him apart from it. There is no way you can honestly say to God, "you are of higher authority than your word, so I will obey you over your word." To say such a thing would be to disobey Him and to separate the divinely inspired word from its true Author. If we don't obey His word, we are not obeying Him, just as someone who does not recognize and obey the decrees of a king as authoritative, disobeys the king.

There is something else here on earth that has that authority, and it is the Church that was started by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:14-19. As I have stated, Jesus did not come down to earth and give us the Bible. Jesus came down to earth and made His Church, and gave Peter earthly authority over his church.

The Bible as we know it today was put together in the 4th century by His Church, the Catholic Church, and gave the Bible to the world. Prior to this, there were over 25 gospels alone floating around all claiming to be divinely inspired. It was the Church who told the world that these 73 books were divinely inspired and true. Without that, none of us would know which books were divinely inspired or not.

 

[Thursday]

I try to post something that is neither pro-Catholic or pro-Protestant in its viewpoint;

If you are trying to show what the Catholic Church teaches you need to use Catholic sources.

Non Catholic sources, like the one you posted, are often wrong.

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

There is something else here on earth that has that authority, and it is the Church that was started by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:14-19. As I have stated, Jesus did not come down to earth and give us the Bible. Jesus came down to earth and made His Church, and gave Peter earthly authority over his church.

The Bible as we know it today was put together in the 4th century by His Church, the Catholic Church, and gave the Bible to the world. Prior to this, there were over 25 gospels alone floating around all claiming to be divinely inspired. It was the Church who told the world that these 73 books were divinely inspired and true. Without that, none of us would know which books were divinely inspired or not.

Your basing your belief system on a dabatable interpretation of scripture : what Jesus meant by the keys. What mattered was the reason that Jesus announced that to Peter: because He spoke from the knowledge of the Father. However there is no way that He could have known who Jesus was w/o knowing scripture that was available to him at the time. And there is no way that the apostles could or did teach others except thru expounding on scripture. Paul took what was written and expounded on that. I fault Paul only where he did not use scripture but instead used rabiniacl law to place rules on the church: women shall remain silent according to law (that was rabinical law according to that of Purin law) You can see the compromise that issued from that: it led to Nicolatean rule Ie: heirarchy over the laity.

 

[Hawkiz]

I never said He did, nor did I say I want to change my life or my heart alone. Of course I recognize that Christ works in me to bring about this change, and that because of Him I am a new creation. I am also part of the "body of Christ", as Paul writes about.
To clarify, I was not hurling an accusation that you wanted to or were attempting to 'go it alone'. Let's take the word 'priest' out for a moment. Do you have a pastor? Or a spiritual advisor? A friend you turn to when in need? Do you listen to that person, even when what they might say is difficult to hear? Does that person ever counsel you to pray? Or counsel you to repent in a visible way?

What do you make of Scripture that clearly states we can go boldly before God ourselves then? As well as Scripture that makes it clear that we have one Father in heaven, and no man (or woman) should have that kind of authority over us.

I believe fully that Christ has torn the curtain in two, and that it is only through Him that we are able to even contemplate going before God.
I would interpret the authority Scripture carefully to include the context that Jesus also clearly instructs us to submit to earthly authority, sometime even when we disagree. Even the Pharisees, whom Jesus challenged more than any other group for their hypocrisy, retained their teaching authority via Christ in Matt. 23:2. This verse, in context, shows that Jesus did not dispute what the Pharisees taught, but rather that they were not following their own teaching. He even tells the people to follow what the Pharisees taught. Jesus did not preach anarchy. The Good News did not remove all earthly authority; it DOES remind us that we should always be serving The Lord. An example from my life might be abortion: I feel that the destruction of life that only God can provide at any stage is wrong and should not be permitted. However, here in America and across the globe, the earthly authorities have determined that not to be the case currently. As such, I must submit to the law while working to change the law. I don't believe that Jesus would find me justified to violate the law through violence, or even forcefully prohibiting someone from getting an abortion...that would be zealousness, which Jesus also did not advocate. Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's. Jesus didn't remove honoring our father and mother either, so clearly He left earthly authority in place...

ALL sin leads to death without our salvation and redemption in Christ Jesus.
Yes it does, and yet 1 John speaks to there being differing levels of sin, unless you have another interpretation to offer?



I don't desire any "wiggle room", I'm not playing around here, and I know that all sin is very serious. But I truly believe, based on Scripture, that we can each go directly to God and ask for forgiveness. Jesus has made this possible, and He alone is our Mediator.
Yes, all sin matters. Yes, we can approach the throne. Yes He alone has the power. And yet, He chose (the Church did not 'make it up' as some would claim) to bestow the power to forgive and to retain sins to His disciples. Why? If His intention was for us to only approach Him, why would He even give this gift at all? Why not spell it out plainly that the apostles were to instruct and preach to only and always only go directly to Jesus?


Indeed, and this forgiveness is available to all who truly repent and call upon the name of Jesus to be saved. He will hear our prayers and confessions, even when they are not said in the presence of a Priest.

Yes, even the explicit teachings of the Catholic Church agree that this is possible. Where the Church departs from this is to say that since Jesus gave the gift of the powers of forgiveness and retention to the apostles, He clearly wanted to establish some real, and visible form for us to know, and hear that we are forgiven. Unless you can offer a different Scriptural interpretation of why Jesus conferred these gifts?

None of what you wrote above is of dispute. True repentance brings about results and change. Of course the person who has repented and acknowledged their sin should do all they can to rectify and right the wrong they have done. All Christians should realize this, whether Catholic or not. And I do not believe we necessarily need the guidance of a Priest for this. The Holy Spirit does convict us of sin, and speaks to our hearts. In this way we know right from wrong.

Now, I'm not diminishing the opportunities and even responsibilities we have as brothers and sisters in Christ to encourage and uplift one another, but such guidance shouldn't need to be handed down through a specific church hierarchy to be meaningful or legitimate. This is an opinion, so do you have any Scriptural basis for this belief? Did Jesus establish and leave behind a Church or not? And an official doctrine of penance, whereby someone we have given spiritual authority over us tells us what to do (especially things like a certain number of Our Fathers or Hail Marys) to make amends/ atone for our sin, is not Biblical.

So is it the prayers or the actions that you have a problem with? I have shown that penance is indeed found in both the OT and the NT, and a careful reading of your reply here seems to acknowledge that fact, but if I am guessing correctly, it is the 'someone else is telling me how to atone' part that you have a real problem with...is that correct? It is not penance but authority that you are struggling with?




Of course, I never said otherwise.



Blessings

~Amariselle

Peace in Christ, and I apologize for having to reply in red and within your answers, I am on the IPad today and it is acting up, making an otherwise normal reply difficult.
Hawkiz

 

[Wolf_Says]

No. You see they chose Peter by misinterpreting the scriptures which they used whilst suiting them to point to scripturrs as the highest authority in this instance, in order to make Peter the head of the Roman Catholic church and hence you have the invention of hierarchical succession.

Please explain how Peter was not the head of the Catholic Church? How are Catholics misinterpreting scripture?

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Please explain how Peter was not the head of the Catholic Church? How are Catholics misinterpreting scripture?

Your basing your belief system on a dabatable interpretation of scripture : what Jesus meant by the keys. What mattered was the reason that Jesus announced that to Peter: because He spoke from the knowledge of the Father. However there is no way that He could have known who Jesus was w/o knowing scripture that was available to him at the time. And there is no way that the apostles could or did teach others except thru expounding on scripture. Paul took what was written and expounded on that. I fault Paul only where he did not use scripture but instead used rabiniacl law to place rules on the church: women shall remain silent according to law (that was rabinical law according to that of Purin law) You can see the compromise that issued from that: it led to Nicolatean rule Ie: heirarchy over the laity.

I just told you

 

[Wolf_Says]

Your basing your belief system on a dabatable interpretation of scripture : what Jesus meant by the keys. What mattered was the reason that Jesus announced that to Peter: because He spoke from the knowledge of the Father. However there is no way that He could have known who Jesus was w/o knowing scripture that was available to him at the time. And there is no way that the apostles could or did teach others except thru expounding on scripture. Paul took what was written and expounded on that. I fault Paul only where he did not use scripture but instead used rabiniacl law to place rules on the church: women shall remain silent according to law (that was rabinical law according to that of Purin law) You can see the compromise that issued from that: it led to Nicolatean rule Ie: heirarchy over the laity.

That part of scripture is not debatable, as I stated Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and Peter in Aramaic is Kephas, which translates literally to rock.

The only scripture that was around during this time was the OT, and it existed in 2 different forms. The Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible, also called the Septuagint. There was no Bible as we know of it today. Yes Jesus did not mean literal keys, but meant the Power to bind and loose, which had originally been given to the Rabbi by Moses.

Historical Context is needed to fully understand the Bible.

The disciples taught through word of mouth by what they saw or were told, and by the traditions handed down to them by Jesus Himself. Yes they had the OT, but they also had the new teachings and traditions of Jesus which they used to bring people to Him.