Is scripture the highest authority?

[AnticipateHisComing]

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.

Still hypocritical. Pretend I was debating a governance issue that intersected religion. I would still defend my position based on God's authority being above government even if I was arguing with an atheist. Not likely you will convince the atheist though.

Further it is hypocritical for your church to claim authority from scripture and then say you are above scripture. Authority goes from higher to lower.

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.

You talk in circles but don't understand what is circular.
Circular logic is: the RCC is inerrant because the Pope has said it.
SS says scripture is true because it is God's word and God can not lie. SS also says it is the only source of incontrovertible truth. It does not have to prove all other sources of "truths" are untrue. It only has to ask others that believe there are other sources of incontrovertible truths to prove them. If no one can do such, than the result is SS.

You have now been asked to provide proof that your church is inerrant. You have not provided it; hence the talking in circles and avoiding that discussion. The Bible does not say there are any other higher sources of truth, but you pretend it does.

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"?

Not a comprehension problem in your statement. A different problem. Let me break down your arguments. Peter, the rock passed on his great authority to guide the one true church in all truth. He passed this down through apostolic succession. Truth was maintained this way for 300 years. But then all of a sudden all these untruthful books were claimed to be God's word so the RCC created scripture and ordained the Bible. Only after this could the apostles/priests know which books were truthful. Oh how many concepts are lacking here.

1) There was no scripture as we know it around that time.
Funny you can add "as we know it" to scripture, but I can't add it to Church.
Regardless, it is false that the scripture did not exist. To qualify it with "as we know it" and just dismiss any use of the letters written is deceptive. Just because it wasn't collated into the "Bible" does not mean it was not circulated or thought to be scripture. I have said this multiple times, to which you and other Catholics ignore; scriptures existed the moment they were spoken/written. Further there was the Old Testament of which you should note was used at the very beginning of Christianity to argue that Jesus was the Christ.

Acts 17:2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,3 explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said.
Also Acts 18:18-28​

2) Peter and all his successors were inerrant and perfect upholders of truth in the RCC.
Was there a total meltdown in the church 200-300 years after Jesus such that the bishops/deacons/overseers could no longer identify the truth? Why are you so impressed with the church at a certain time being able to go through all the false books and edict which were true, collate them, creating scripture, the Bible? If your early church was so pure, why, when and how did all these false books that claimed to be God's word get passed around? It should have been very easy for any bishop to stamp them out.

Think about it. Books were not easily reproduced. That means they would be very expensive and not available to the masses of Christians. People did not read scripture individually/privately. The people reading "scripture" would have been the apostles/deacons/priests reading it to the church. If false books were a problem in the early church, then the priests reading them were not perfect upholders of truth.

The whole benefit of one "bishop" identifying the truthful books that should be classified as scripture is for those that were not perfect in upholding/determining truth.
This means scripture had to be nailed down because the "traditional" way of upholding truth and passing on of "traditions" was failing.

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.

If you think bind and loose such a special power, read Matthew 18:15-20 where Jesus gave this authority to the whole church to deal with sinners in it. If you think the power to forgive sins to be great, read John 20:21-22 to see he gave this authority to the disciples. Then read James 5:14-16 to see how the elders were to deal with sickness and sin in the church. Lastly you should read Luke 22:24-30 and Matthew 19:27-28 to see the special power Jesus gave to the 12 apostles; that they would sit on 12 thrones judging the saints. In summary Jesus gave all the apostles much authority, not just Peter.

But, in all these texts is there one place where Jesus said they would be inerrant or could transfer the highest authority they had to others? Note that Jesus said there were 12 thrones, not hundreds for every apostle that succeeded Peter.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I will tell you this, search the Bible for the words "foundation/bulwark of truth" and see what the Bible itself says. Hint, it is in 1 Timothy 3:15 "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

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.

You started this piece with quoting one verse of scripture, 1 Timothy 3:15. From it you Catholics claim a special authority/power to own truth. Yet again you claim scripture gives you authority over scripture; remember authority goes from higher to lower.

So is it typical for doctrine to be developed from one verse of scripture? Is it right to ignore the context of one verse of scripture for a most important doctrine? Understand that 1 Timothy teaches about the "clergy" maintaining godliness in the church membership, 1 Timothy 3:16. The purpose of the text is not to grant the clergy some new right to inerrancy.

As I correctly predicted, my point escapes you. It had nothing to do with the Pope and his authority. It has to do with your repeated claims to special authority passed down through Peter. You in your last comment rightly acknowledge that all authority the Church has, came from Jesus. In my last post, I pointed out most of these places where Jesus quite explicitly gave the 12 apostles special authority. When I asked you to "Tell me again what authority Jesus gave to Peter in 1 Tim 3:15" it was a trap that you ignored and did not answer. If you did, you would have acknowledged that Jesus did not say these words in person, therefore the one that said them is not able to assign such a great authority as being above scripture. Secondly, the words were not addressed to Peter, but to the general clergy. Thirdly, the authorship is questionably Paul, not even Peter.

Now, lets go back to how we should develop doctrine based on scripture. We do not take things out of context. We recognize Jesus as the granter of authority. Anything as significant as the source of highest authority would surely be discussed at length in multiple places. The Catholic church's continued reliance on this one passage of scripture as granting them some special ownership of truth fails good exegesis.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

It is even stated that not everything that Jesus said or did was written down in John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

You don't understand the meaning of this verse. Does the RCC claim to know all the truths of God? Not, even they are not so arrogant as to claim such. So the truths that we need on earth are the ones sufficient for salvation. Do you claim that the Bible is insufficient for this. You would then have to assert that all the churches that follow SS are also insufficient for salvation.

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

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.

I can't get a simple yes or no answer from you; how strong in your convictions. I asked about the truths in scripture and you answer yes to the Church. I think just NO is your real answer.

About your no. I thought you bad for taking one verse out of context, here you take one word out of context.

2 Peter 1:12 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 17 He[Jesus] received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. ​

Context: establishing the truth of Jesus and his gospel message.
This text follows the law of multiple witnesses to truth.
Witness 1: God the Father.
Witness 2: Scripture, Old Testament, and its fulfilled prophecies of Jesus. This text is talking about prophets of the Old Testament being inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is not teaching about the interpretation of scripture in general by students of it. Oh how you twist scripture for your own profit, even while you belittle it. Next you say that the Bible only has half of God's truth and the RCC has the other half.

So if you are Protestant, you only have half the knowledge that a Catholic has? Given this, could you provide one doctrine necessary for salvation that you have in the RCC that is not in scripture.

Do you think there will be Protestants in heaven?

 

[fhansen]

In the Sola Scriptura thread a claim was made that scripture is not the highest authority we have now. I was flabbergasted that Christians would make such a claim, as I believe scripture to be God's word. While there were multiple writers of scripture, the author of the words are none other than God who used the Holy Spirit to direct the writers. Of course scripture attests to this in multiple places.

My belief that scripture is the highest authority that we Christians now living have is based on the truth that God is supreme. In the absence of God's physical presence, we have God's word as next highest authority, John 1:17, John 17:17, John 8:31-32, Mat 24:35. God's words are in places direct quotes of Jesus in the first four books of the N.T. God's words are also Jesus working through the Holy Spirit to speak through the 13 apostles, who Jesus gave special authority, 2 cor 13:3.

The greatest special authority the apostles had was to write down scripture, speak God's word. This was completed 60 years after Jesus' departure. While the canon of scripture was not declared until later, God's words in the N.T. scriptures were circulating and being used before the later date that certain church leaders took it upon themselves to throw out the trash that had been added to the list of "scripture" over time. Understand that the authority to throw out trash is lower than the authority to speak God's word. For by the diligent reading of God's words, we could all attain the understanding needed to test false teachings and throw out the trash. Scripture in fact gives this task to all, to test what you are being taught against scripture.

Some falsely claim that others today continue with the same authority as the first apostles, and that the Holy Spirit speaks through them with equal truth. I ask what proof of their authority do we have? Were they called directly by Jesus? Do they perform the miracles like Jesus did. Are their words added to the canon?

I believe what scripture says, that the Holy Spirit continues to speak through many Christians today including religious leaders of all denominations. The question is how can one be certain of what anyone says at any given time is the truth? There is only one that can not lie, God. Given that we live in a fallen world and continue to sin, there is no proof that what anyone of any religious knowledge or authority always speaks the truth. To me the whole issue of the SS battle is just one of incontrovertible truth. As God and scripture testifies to its truth, I see no argument proving that there is incontrovertible truth anywhere else except in God's words.

We can always be certain that God's word in scripture is always true. How can this be said for anything else?

A problem is that Scripture is simply the written Word; it cannot speak for or explain itself when controversies arise, as the church could, even before a word of the NT was penned. Consider the eunuch, who needed Philip, a disciple, to explain the meaning of Scripture to him.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Alright this will be long because you simply refuse to listen. I will also try and keep my points short so that you actually have a chance to read it.

Still hypocritical. Pretend I was debating a governance issue that intersected religion. I would still defend my position based on God's authority being above government even if I was arguing with an atheist. Not likely you will convince the atheist though.

Further it is hypocritical for your church to claim authority from scripture and then say you are above scripture. Authority goes from higher to lower.

Then you would be debating incorrectly, because you would get nowhere. You must use common ground, because only then can you get anywhere. I am not claiming that the Church got it's authority from scripture, the Church got it from Jesus. There is nothing higher than Him. The Bible is simply what I used to show this to you, because if I used other resources then all I would hear is "where is that in the Bible?" since that is all you will listen to. I cannot count how many times I have heard "if you are not giving me Bible verses, I will not listen because it is not true."

The Church received authority through Jesus, and the Bible came from the Church.

You talk in circles but don't understand what is circular.
Circular logic is: the RCC is inerrant because the Pope has said it.
SS says scripture is true because it is God's word and God can not lie. SS also says it is the only source of incontrovertible truth. It does not have to prove all other sources of "truths" are untrue. It only has to ask others that believe there are other sources of incontrovertible truths to prove them. If no one can do such, than the result is SS.

You have now been asked to provide proof that your church is inerrant. You have not provided it; hence the talking in circles and avoiding that discussion. The Bible does not say there are any other higher sources of truth, but you pretend it does.

Yet the Bible itself does NOT state SS, instead states that the church is the foundation of truth. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that there is no higher source of truth. You want something else besides the Bible? Fine then.
CCC # 796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist.234 The Lord referred to himself as the "bridegroom."235 The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride "betrothed" to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.236 The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb.237 "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her."238 He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:239

Not a comprehension problem in your statement. A different problem. Let me break down your arguments. Peter, the rock passed on his great authority to guide the one true church in all truth. He passed this down through apostolic succession. Truth was maintained this way for 300 years. But then all of a sudden all these untruthful books were claimed to be God's word so the RCC created scripture and ordained the Bible. Only after this could the apostles/priests know which books were truthful. Oh how many concepts are lacking here.

Copied this part only. As I stated, there was a Gospel of Peter, also a Gospel of James. Both Apostles, so why wouldn't the normal people read and believe these? You faith to understand something, when Christianity started to spread, there were many different spoken languages and word did not travel fast. If a disciple came and taught about Jesus, and shortly after he left that town received a gospel that claimed to be true, they had no reason NOT to believe it.

This lead to many different heretics in the early Church that the Church had to strike down.( http://www.christianitytoday.com/hi...-early-church-christian-history-timeline.html) Notice that most of these started before the Bible was put together. Eventually this became cumbersome and so at the Council of Nicaea the Church developed the Nicene Creed and started it's journey to collect all the books and decide which were divinely inspired and which were false.

If false books were a problem in the early church, then the priests reading them were not perfect upholders of truth.

The whole benefit of one "bishop" identifying the truthful books that should be classified as scripture is for those that were not perfect in upholding/determining truth.
This means scripture had to be nailed down because the "traditional" way of upholding truth and passing on of "traditions" was failing.

The priests are people as well, and are perfectly capable of sin and mistakes or misinterpreting. No the traditional way was not failing, because there was still only 1 Church, which was the Catholic Church. The Church is the bride of Christ, and the devil HATES Jesus and God with everything he has. The devil has been attacking and trying to take down His Church for 2000 years.

If you think bind and loose such a special power, read Matthew 18:15-20 where Jesus gave this authority to the whole church to deal with sinners in it. If you think the power to forgive sins to be great, read John 20:21-22 to see he gave this authority to the disciples. Then read James 5:14-16 to see how the elders were to deal with sickness and sin in the church. Lastly you should read Luke 22:24-30 and Matthew 19:27-28 to see the special power Jesus gave to the 12 apostles; that they would sit on 12 thrones judging the saints. In summary Jesus gave all the apostles much authority, not just Peter.

But, in all these texts is there one place where Jesus said they would be inerrant or could transfer the highest authority they had to others? Note that Jesus said there were 12 thrones, not hundreds for every apostle that succeeded Peter.

Matthew 18:15-20, wrong this does not give anybody the power to loose or bind. Jesus is restating what He had already told Peter for it was Peter who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
All the others simply are Jesus giving authority to the disciples, which I never said they didn't have. I said Peter had the most, as the leader of the disciples, because Jesus had given him the keys. Yes there are 12 thrones, because the apostles were special to Jesus and they deserve to sit besides him in the kingdom of heaven. I never said the Pope would sit on a throne in heaven, I simply said that the Pope is the earthly successor to Peter.

I can't get a simple yes or no answer from you; how strong in your convictions. I asked about the truths in scripture and you answer yes to the Church. I think just NO is your real answer.

No there are truths in scripture, I have never denied that. And I will never deny that, it is the protestants who really deny the truths of scripture. If they truly did, then they would know that the Catholic Church is right.

You started this piece with quoting one verse of scripture, 1 Timothy 3:15. From it you Catholics claim a special authority/power to own truth. Yet again you claim scripture gives you authority over scripture; remember authority goes from higher to lower.

Once again never claimed that the scripture gives authority to the Church, it simply re-enforces it. Jesus gave authority to the Church.

As I correctly predicted, my point escapes you. It had nothing to do with the Pope and his authority. It has to do with your repeated claims to special authority passed down through Peter. You in your last comment rightly acknowledge that all authority the Church has, came from Jesus. In my last post, I pointed out most of these places where Jesus quite explicitly gave the 12 apostles special authority. When I asked you to "Tell me again what authority Jesus gave to Peter in 1 Tim 3:15" it was a trap that you ignored and did not answer. If you did, you would have acknowledged that Jesus did not say these words in person, therefore the one that said them is not able to assign such a great authority as being above scripture. Secondly, the words were not addressed to Peter, but to the general clergy. Thirdly, the authorship is questionably Paul, not even Peter.

I knew of the trap, and your "point" does not exist. As I stated, yes Jesus gave authority to the apostles, which were the first members of the Church that Jesus founded with Peter as the earthly head. I thought you believed scripture to be the highest authority, which means you fully believe and accept everything in scripture. So, since it is in the Bible, it is the divinely inspired written word of God. Which means the Holy Spirit spoke through Paul when he was writing to Timothy. But you just stated otherwise, 1 saying that it is questionably Paul, and that those words were never spoken by Jesus.
So I can only conclude from that, that you only believe scripture when it fits with what you believe, and reject everything else that does not fit.

So if you are Protestant, you only have half the knowledge that a Catholic has? Given this, could you provide one doctrine necessary for salvation that you have in the RCC that is not in scripture.

Do you think there will be Protestants in heaven?

Oh it is all in scripture, as I said, because the Bible is the biggest supporter of the Catholic Church since it was put together by the Church. I believe protestants will be in heaven, but it is not because they rejected the Church, but in spite of it.

However, this is the stance of the Catholic Church http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

I suggest you fully read it.

Not only Catholics will go to heaven, but in heaven there are only Catholics.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

A problem is that Scripture is simply the written Word; it cannot speak for or explain itself when controversies arise, as the church could, even before a word of the NT was penned. Consider the eunuch, who needed Philip, a disciple, to explain the meaning of Scripture to him.

Like I never heard that one before.

The eunuch did not have the help of the Holy Spirit to add understanding; at the time as he was not yet baptized.

And, yet again I will point out that understanding of the truth of God's word is a completely different question than the one I asked in this thread. Churches and "traditions" can help with that, along with the Holy Spirit.

Ones personal understanding of scripture has absolutely no bearing on the truth of scripture.

 

[fhansen]

Like I never heard that one before.

More than likely you have, since it's true.

The eunuch did not have the help of the Holy Spirit to add understanding; at the time as he was not yet baptized.

So baptism guarantees understanding? People who are baptized don't even agree on whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation.

And, yet again I will point out that understanding of the truth of God's word is a completely different question than the one I asked in this thread. Churches and "traditions" can help with that, along with the Holy Spirit.

Ones personal understanding of scripture has absolutely no bearing on the truth of scripture.

Exactly, it's not a matter of private interpretation or opinion. As I mentioned before, claiming that scripture is true is one thing while discerning who or what actually has the correct understanding of it is a completely different matter.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

More than likely you have, since it's true.

It is true that scripture was explained to a eunuch by one in the church. It is not true that the church is required to bring understanding of scripture to any, especially one with the blessing of the Holy Spirit. To insinuate the church is required, is deceptive.

So baptism guarantees understanding?

Sure, just like understanding is guaranteed to everyone in the RCC.

People who are baptized don't even agree on whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation.

Jesus affirmed baptism was not necessary in the man on the cross.

Exactly, it's not a matter of private interpretation or opinion. As I mentioned before, claiming that scripture is true is one thing while discerning who or what actually has the correct understanding of it is a completely different matter.

So we agree, scripture is the highest source of truth we now have.
The church can help with understanding of it, but that was not the question of this thread.

 

[fhansen]

It is true that scripture was explained to a eunuch by one in the church. It is not true that the church is required to bring understanding of scripture to any, especially one with the blessing of the Holy Spirit. To insinuate the church is required, is deceptive.

Yes, of course, deceptive. OR...alternatively, simply true-and necessarily so IMO.

Sure, just like understanding is guaranteed to everyone in the RCC.

IDK-I didn't assert that. But you asserted that baptism does guarantee this, an assertion easily enough disproved in my experience.

Jesus affirmed baptism was not necessary in the man on the cross.

The church teaches that we're responsible for doing what we can do with what we're given, based on knowledge and opportunity. Salvation is possible even for those ignorant of Christ for that reason. The normative way, however, the way God has provided, is faith and baptism.

So we agree, scripture is the highest source of truth we now have.

You seem to have presumed a bit much here- if you're willing to re-read the quote. I certainly believe Scripture to be an authoritative source of revelation, even if that's not what was stated in my post, but not the only or highest one. It's equal in authority to the church's lived experience from the beginning, aka "Tradition". Without that experience, that input, biblical interpretation is largely guess-work; may the best exegete win, etc.

 

[Wolf_Says]

It is true that scripture was explained to a eunuch by one in the church. It is not true that the church is required to bring understanding of scripture to any, especially one with the blessing of the Holy Spirit. To insinuate the church is required, is deceptive.

It is true that the Church has the sole authority in interpreting scripture however, otherwise you get the mess that the protestants are currently in, 40,000k denominations and growing, all claiming SS and claiming to have the truth.

Sure, just like understanding is guaranteed to everyone in the RCC.

Nobody has actually stated this as far as I know. What we have said is that the Church has the authority to interpret scripture. Not everybody in the RCC will have complete understanding.

Jesus affirmed baptism was not necessary in the man on the cross.

Actually the theif on the cross was an exception. Becauses Jesus himself stated that no one will see Heaven unless they are born again, by water and the Spirit (aka baptism). The Church recognizes that there are some expections to this such as death bed conversions in which baptism simply is not possible. But, once again, that is not the norm. The way that Jesus gave us was by baptism.

So we agree, scripture is the highest source of truth we now have.
The church can help with understanding of it, but that was not the question of this thread.

That is quiet the jump, from what I see he did not state that at all. I suggest that you stop forcing your words down other peoples' throats in this matter.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Alright this will be long because you simply refuse to listen.

Understand the difference between agreeing with and listening. I could say the same to you, but that does not help a conversation.

The Bible is simply what I used to show this to you, because if I used other resources then all I would hear is "where is that in the Bible?" since that is all you will listen to. I cannot count how many times I have heard "if you are not giving me Bible verses, I will not listen because it is not true."

You have received good advice countless times; listen, acknowledge the truth of it.

The Church received authority through Jesus, and the Bible came from the Church.

Yet another attempt to hijack God's words and gain some authority from it. This thread is about the truth in scripture, not about how one church decided at one point in time to put their stamp on God's word. I have argued multiple times that scripture existed the moment it was spoken/written. You have not refuted this, yet you persist in deceptive comments crediting your church with the Bible.
What are you really trying to say with "the Bible came from your church"?

Yet the Bible itself does NOT state SS, instead states that the church is the foundation of truth. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that there is no higher source of truth.

Why do you even bother repeating the same Bible does not say SS argument? I gave my "proof" to SS. I asked you to provide proof to your belief in inerrancy of your church, but you refuse even with my prodding as being impossible.

You want something else besides the Bible? Fine then.
CCC # 796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist.234 The Lord referred to himself as the "bridegroom."235 The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride "betrothed" to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.236 The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb.237 "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her."238 He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:239

What were you thinking with this quote? It certainly encourages my respect for Catholic doctrine, at the expense of Catholics that don't understand what their church teaches. How many posts have you misrepresented "the Church" to be your religious institution/beauacracy, the clergy of it. In the CCC you just provided, it defines the Church to be head and members of the Body. As it says Christ died for the Church, which would be all Christians, not a certain religious organization. Can you provide the source for your quote as I would like to use it in my "One Church" thread.

As I stated, there was a Gospel of Peter, also a Gospel of James. Both Apostles, so why wouldn't the normal people read and believe these? You faith to understand something, when Christianity started to spread, there were many different spoken languages and word did not travel fast. If a disciple came and taught about Jesus, and shortly after he left that town received a gospel that claimed to be true, they had no reason NOT to believe it.

This lead to many different heretics in the early Church that the Church had to strike down.( http://www.christianitytoday.com/hi...-early-church-christian-history-timeline.html) Notice that most of these started before the Bible was put together. Eventually this became cumbersome and so at the Council of Nicaea the Church developed the Nicene Creed and started it's journey to collect all the books and decide which were divinely inspired and which were false.

The priests are people as well, and are perfectly capable of sin and mistakes or misinterpreting. No the traditional way was not failing, because there was still only 1 Church, which was the Catholic Church. The Church is the bride of Christ, and the devil HATES Jesus and God with everything he has. The devil has been attacking and trying to take down His Church for 2000 years.

Somehow your church, the original and protector of truth church was not able to keep false teachings out of the early church, but some time later you think it can. Somehow your so precious Traditions were being corrupted by false scriptures and people were being mislead. If you think Traditions above scripture, why were people mislead by false scriptures? And, if there were false scriptures, there were true scriptures. The understood way of testing all teachings was against scripture; and the church was able to do this before "your church created the Bible".

You seem to be so impressed with the RCC taking control of Christianity in the 4th century. Learn that the church if true would be able to maintain truth in the church without the "help" of the state. For the RCC to pride themselves on the authoritative rule of the Christian Church only reinforces the adage on absolute power.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Yes, of course, deceptive. OR...alternatively, simply true-and necessarily so IMO.

You do both, and think your belief true without proof.

Sure, just like understanding is guaranteed to everyone in the RCC.

IDK-I didn't assert that. But you asserted that baptism does guarantee this, an assertion easily enough disproved in my experience.

Wow, a CF member that doesn't recognize sarcasm. It was meant to poke fun of your inerrant church with its perfect understanding of scripture. If your church was so good at maintaining truth in it, as the one Bible verse you always quote says, than you should be able to state what I did.

You seem to have presumed a bit much here- if you're willing to re-read the quote. I certainly believe Scripture to be an authoritative source of revelation, even if that's not what was stated in my post, but not the only or highest one. It's equal in authority to the church's lived experience from the beginning, aka "Tradition". Without that experience, that input, biblical interpretation is largely guess-work; may the best exegete win, etc.

I had to presume because instead of addressing my thread question and saying what you just stated for your fist post here, you had to make it about something else; to excuse your reluctance to face the truth of scripture. Even after I point out my thread is about sources of inerrant spiritual truth, you persist in wanting to discuss how truth is interpreted.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Yes, of course, deceptive. OR...alternatively, simply true-and necessarily so IMO.

You do both, and think your belief true without proof.

Sure, just like understanding is guaranteed to everyone in the RCC.

IDK-I didn't assert that. But you asserted that baptism does guarantee this, an assertion easily enough disproved in my experience.

Wow, a CF member that doesn't recognize sarcasm. It was meant to poke fun of your inerrant church with its perfect understanding of scripture. If your church was so good at maintaining truth in it, as the one Bible verse you always quote says, than you should be able to state what I did.

You seem to have presumed a bit much here- if you're willing to re-read the quote. I certainly believe Scripture to be an authoritative source of revelation, even if that's not what was stated in my post, but not the only or highest one. It's equal in authority to the church's lived experience from the beginning, aka "Tradition". Without that experience, that input, biblical interpretation is largely guess-work; may the best exegete win, etc.

I had to presume because instead of addressing my thread question and saying what you just stated, you had to make it about something else to excuse your reluctance to face the truth of scripture. Even after I point out my thread is about sources of inerrant spiritual truth, you persist in wanting to discuss how truth is interpreted.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Matthew 18:15-20, wrong this does not give anybody the power to loose or bind. Jesus is restating what He had already told Peter for it was Peter who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

Sure, what a way to completely ignore the context of Matthew 18. Read verse 21.

21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”​

According to your logic, Jesus was talking to just Peter in verse 19, but two verses later scripture explicitly calls out as Peter coming to Jesus, NOT. If I was being told something, I would not have to come up to that same person 15 seconds later to ask him a question. Jesus was obviously talking to multiple people as verse one states.

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”​

So if Jesus is talking to multiple disciples in verse 1, he is continuing to talk to multiple disciples in verse 18 when he gives them the power to bind.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.​

All the others simply are Jesus giving authority to the disciples, which I never said they didn't have. I said Peter had the most, as the leader of the disciples, because Jesus had given him the keys. Yes there are 12 thrones, because the apostles were special to Jesus and they deserve to sit besides him in the kingdom of heaven. I never said the Pope would sit on a throne in heaven, I simply said that the Pope is the earthly successor to Peter.

So Peter is the greatest apostle because he has the keys. The other lesser apostles are still great enough to be called out by Jesus as being one of only 12 sitting on thrones in heaven. The Pope also gets the keys, but he is not that great because he doesn't get a throne. The Pope is still great though and serves, like Peter as the official head of the Church.

Notice any inconsistencies in this logic?

And, you continue to not provide any proof for Peter being inerrant or Peter being able to transfer his authority to successors. You have been asked this many times.

 

[fhansen]

You do both, and think your belief true without proof.

Oh, ok. But you haven't offered any proof at all for your claim that it's deceptive to insinuate that the church is necessary for correct interpretation. BTW, whether a church or an individual, anyone can claim to be guided by the HS. How do you know, BTW, that Scripture is authoritative to begin with, or more authoritative than the churches understanding by tradition?

Wow, a CF member that doesn't recognize sarcasm. It was meant to poke fun of your inerrant church with its perfect understanding of scripture. If your church was so good at maintaining truth in it, as the one Bible verse you always quote says, than you should be able to state what I did.

Well, if that was honestly meant as sarcasm is was poorly done-and about as easy to recognize as it is to decipher your intention here with the above statement.

I had to presume because instead of addressing my thread question and saying what you just stated, you had to make it about something else to excuse your reluctance to face the truth of scripture. Even after I point out my thread is about sources of inerrant spiritual truth, you persist in wanting to discuss how truth is interpreted.

I made a very simple and related point: whether or not scripture is viewed as the highest authority, that does little good unless we can understand what it authoritatively means to convey. You seem to imply that some have the guidance of the HS and some do not but it's not clear by what reason you think one may be guided while another is not-or why we might believe one person's interpretation is correct while another's is not. I'm sure you'd agree that not all who claim such guidance always agree with each other.

Anyway, the oldest churches all agree that God established a church for that very purpose, to know and preserve and convey the good news-and that its Tradition, the 2nd source of revelation, that which wasn't necessarily recorded, helps her do just that-to know and be guided into-by past experience and practice, the truth, and then be kept there. And our lack of assurance about Scripture's meaning-and the need for another source of authority to complement and work in conjunction with Scripture-was the basis for my first post.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

No there are truths in scripture, I have never denied that. And I will never deny that, it is the protestants who really deny the truths of scripture. If they truly did, then they would know that the Catholic Church is right.

What a great rebuttal after misinterpreting and taking 2 Peter 1:20 completely out of context. I guess you don't have to defend what you say is right; you just have to say it is right. Who does that sound like?

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

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.

So if you are Protestant, you only have half the knowledge that a Catholic has? Given this, could you provide one doctrine necessary for salvation that you have in the RCC that is not in scripture.

Do you think there will be Protestants in heaven?

Oh it is all in scripture, as I said, because the Bible is the biggest supporter of the Catholic Church since it was put together by the Church. I believe protestants will be in heaven, but it is not because they rejected the Church, but in spite of it.

So you have stated there are truths outside of the Bible that your church has. You have quantified these truths as only being "half" of them. You profess that your church is above scripture. But then when asked to provide any truth that is required for salvation that is outside of scripture, you say there is none.

So I guess your church is good for providing "truths" that are not necessary for salvation. And, all the Protestants should be denigrated because they only want the necessary truths that are incontrovertibly true and not the questionable unnecessary ones.

Are we still brothers in Christ, because I only see division in this?

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

You started this piece with quoting one verse of scripture, 1 Timothy 3:15. From it you Catholics claim a special authority/power to own truth. Yet again you claim scripture gives you authority over scripture; remember authority goes from higher to lower.

So is it typical for doctrine to be developed from one verse of scripture? Is it right to ignore the context of one verse of scripture for a most important doctrine? Understand that 1 Timothy teaches about the "clergy" maintaining godliness in the church membership, 1 Timothy 3:16. The purpose of the text is not to grant the clergy some new right to inerrancy.

As I correctly predicted, my point escapes you. It had nothing to do with the Pope and his authority. It has to do with your repeated claims to special authority passed down through Peter. You in your last comment rightly acknowledge that all authority the Church has, came from Jesus. In my last post, I pointed out most of these places where Jesus quite explicitly gave the 12 apostles special authority. When I asked you to "Tell me again what authority Jesus gave to Peter in 1 Tim 3:15" it was a trap that you ignored and did not answer. If you did, you would have acknowledged that Jesus did not say these words in person, therefore the one that said them is not able to assign such a great authority as being above scripture. Secondly, the words were not addressed to Peter, but to the general clergy. Thirdly, the authorship is questionably Paul, not even Peter.

Now, lets go back to how we should develop doctrine based on scripture. We do not take things out of context. We recognize Jesus as the granter of authority. Anything as significant as the source of highest authority would surely be discussed at length in multiple places. The Catholic church's continued reliance on this one passage of scripture as granting them some special ownership of truth fails good exegesis.

I knew of the trap, and your "point" does not exist. As I stated, yes Jesus gave authority to the apostles, which were the first members of the Church that Jesus founded with Peter as the earthly head. I thought you believed scripture to be the highest authority, which means you fully believe and accept everything in scripture. So, since it is in the Bible, it is the divinely inspired written word of God. Which means the Holy Spirit spoke through Paul when he was writing to Timothy. But you just stated otherwise, 1 saying that it is questionably Paul, and that those words were never spoken by Jesus.

Scripture is the divinely inspired word of God. The Bible is "your" recording of it. The authorship of the first letter to Timothy has as of late been questioned to not be Paul directly. The New Testament is Jesus speaking through the Holy Spirit to the apostles and my post was; Jesus did not say the words in person and they were not even directed to Peter or by him.

Now understand what authority is and how there are different ones. You do agree to different kinds of authority as you profess great authority given to Peter. You have also stated that all authority comes from God/Jesus.

One authority is to speak God's word of such incontrovertible truth that it can be recorded as scripture. The 12+1 apostles had this authority. Another authority/power is to perform miracles. Now just because I might be able to do miracles, doesn't mean I can transfer that authority to another such that they can do miracles. Much less would I be able to give another the authority to do something as great as speak for God. Remember, all authority comes from God.

Now getting back to how even a wrong interpretation of 1 Tim 3:15 taken out of context can not be the basis for the church obtaining a new authority. "Paul" had the authority to speak God's word. He had authority to set up earthly Overseers and Deacons to govern and guide an earthly church. He did not have authority to put them above God's word; so that is not the meaning of said verse.

The purpose of me pointing out the places where Jesus himself dolled out authority was so that you could learn how it was done. Jesus was quite clear in what authorities were given. Jesus is also quite clear to whom he was giving authorities. He also used very explicit words in doing so. I will not repeat them, but the verbiage is much different than one verse in the middle of 1 Tim 3:15. The Timothy passage fails in your interpretation as it was not authority given personally by God, it is clearly not said to Peter and the context is of clergy helping out the church members, not one of authority/ownership of scripture.

So I can only conclude from that, that you only believe scripture when it fits with what you believe, and reject everything else that does not fit.

Same to you, brother.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Well, if that was honestly meant as sarcasm is was poorly done-and about as easy to recognize as it is to decipher your intention here with the above statement.

You started with the outlandish question/accusation that baptism guarantees understanding. I responded with an equally outlandish statement that everyone in the RCC has the same. Funny how a Catholic never sees sarcasm when a Protestant pokes fun of their claims to truth, inerrancy and understanding.

I made a very simple and related point: whether or not scripture is viewed as the highest authority, that does little good unless we can understand what it authoritatively means to convey.

It should be clear that I disagree. It is the whole reason for my thread:
Is scripture the highest authority?
If I thought the basis of truth was interpretation of truth, I would have started a thread like:

If you think it is true, is it?
or

If someone says it is true, is it?​

or if I was being more charitable
How is the correct understand of scripture obtained?

I believe that there is no point in arguing about doctrines or interpretations of God's word unless you have agreement on where the highest source of incontrovertible truth is. Riffle through the pages in this thread to see where people that have tried to argue doctrine differences as a way to convince another of their position. One who argues for indulgences will stand by their teaching because of tradition. One who argues against, argues it as proof of false doctrine in a church that claims to be inerrant.

You seem to imply that some have the guidance of the HS and some do not but it's not clear by what reason you think one may be guided while another is not-or why we might believe one person's interpretation is correct while another's is not.

Again, not this thread, but based on scripture is my answer. Certainly people disagree. I think it the great evil that so many denominations insist to own the truth. This is not just an RCC thing.

I think it better for everyone to study scripture and learn from it; certainly churches can help with this, but no one should trust church doctrine to be incontrovertibly true. If so, how would disciples of false religions ever come to the truth? Further, the act of studying the truth has merit above just memorizing the truth. If some end up with an incorrect understanding of scripture, so be it. I don't think they will go to hell for it as long as they believe in Jesus as their Savior.

I'm sure you'd agree that not all who claim such guidance always agree with each other.

Again, not of supreme importance. We will all know the truth when we get to heaven. But, I have a question. How does the RCC answer your question, how does it deal with disagreements in your church? Is only the Pope inerrant? Does everyone just agree with him and does every Pope agree with the next?

Anyway, the oldest churches all agree that God established a church

The oldest churches agree that God established one church. How funny. You agree on one thing but disagree on many others such that you have split at least 3 ways. So you must be right. Somehow a 3 way split is OK, but when Protestants split they brought hundreds of splits, so they are wrong.

for that very purpose, to know and preserve and convey the good news-and that its Tradition, the 2nd source of revelation, that which wasn't necessarily recorded, helps her do just that-to know and be guided into-by past experience and practice, the truth, and then be kept there. And our lack of assurance about Scripture's meaning-and the need for another source of authority to complement and work in conjunction with Scripture-was the basis for my first post.

I have no problem with Traditions helping understand scripture.[/QUOTE]

 

[DerekJM]

You started with the outlandish question/accusation that baptism guarantees understanding. I responded with an equally outlandish statement that everyone in the RCC has the same. Funny how a Catholic never sees sarcasm when a Protestant pokes fun of their claims to truth, inerrancy and understanding.

It should be clear that I disagree. It is the whole reason for my thread:
Is scripture the highest authority?
If I thought the basis of truth was interpretation of truth, I would have started a thread like:

If you think it is true, is it?
or

If someone says it is true, is it?​

or if I was being more charitable
How is the correct understand of scripture obtained?

I believe that there is no point in arguing about doctrines or interpretations of God's word unless you have agreement on where the highest source of incontrovertible truth is. Riffle through the pages in this thread to see where people that have tried to argue doctrine differences as a way to convince another of their position. One who argues for indulgences will stand by their teaching because of tradition. One who argues against, argues it as proof of false doctrine in a church that claims to be inerrant.


Again, not this thread, but based on scripture is my answer. Certainly people disagree. I think it the great evil that so many denominations insist to own the truth. This is not just an RCC thing.

I think it better for everyone to study scripture and learn from it; certainly churches can help with this, but no one should trust church doctrine to be incontrovertibly true. If so, how would disciples of false religions ever come to the truth? Further, the act of studying the truth has merit above just memorizing the truth. If some end up with an incorrect understanding of scripture, so be it. I don't think they will go to hell for it as long as they believe in Jesus as their Savior.


Again, not of supreme importance. We will all know the truth when we get to heaven. But, I have a question. How does the RCC answer your question, how does it deal with disagreements in your church? Is only the Pope inerrant? Does everyone just agree with him and does every Pope agree with the next?


The oldest churches agree that God established one church. How funny. You agree on one thing but disagree on many others such that you have split at least 3 ways. So you must be right. Somehow a 3 way split is OK, but when Protestants split they brought hundreds of splits, so they are wrong.


I have no problem with Traditions helping understand scripture.

[/QUOTE]

Many denominations claim to be in the truth, including most of the cults, that is no secret.
And many Catholics are overly content with the fact that they see "the RCC church" as the origin of Christianity, and gives them divine connections to Christ Himself.
But understanding scripture is another issue , as many fundamentalists are much more into doctrinal purity than their Christian life per se, and that appears to be vital to whether one is saved or not.
I have read the words "false gospel/ doctrine" and "a different Jesus" on other sites, enough times to have worked that out. That just reeks with exclusivity.
I also agree that many denominations, including Catholics, need to read scripture more in their own time -regardless of whether they can make sense of it on their own.