Why is the bible authoritative?

[LOCO]

I disagree being a former Catholic (for a few weeks now) I know the full indoctrination of the CC was always around, etc, etc. It's not about linking back to Christ but following Christ here and now, not about a silly institution but a person that of Christ. Christ spoke against the pharisees in Scripture and they just now call themselves Catholic hierarchy, still binding the faithful just like they did in ancient times.

The good news is they don't matter any more. Christ and Him crucified is what matters now in the new Covenant

Christ would never abandon his Church?

Scriptures tell us that Christ said He would be with His Church until the consummation of the world.

The gates of Hell will never prevail over his Church.

Pharisee-ism exists in all religions. It is simplistic and easy to say that ALL Catholic clergy are Pharisees without any evidence to back your claim.

I agree, we should all be following Christ now but which one? There are thousands of 'ecclesial communities' all claiming to be the ONE TRUE church, all selling their version of Christ.

We are not shopping for a car, we are talking about eternal life. Christians need to be discerning, ask themselves:

Does it bear the four marks/attributes of a true church?

It's ALL about linking back to Christ and only one Church can make that claim.

"Why would someone want a Chinese made Louis Vuitton knockoff which never lasts when they can have the original."
J.Spencer ( good friend/ex-Baptist Catholic convert Easter 2011)

 

[razeontherock]

I agree, we should all be following Christ now but which one? There are thousands of 'ecclesial communities' all claiming to be the ONE TRUE church, all selling their version of Christ.

Disagreed. There may be some really far out denoms that do teach a different Christ, but that is the exception and not the rule. I do agree that is the central issue though! And the RCC may not be the only one claiming to be the one true Church, but that is not a common thing either.

 

[LinuxUser]

Christ would never abandon his Church?

Scriptures tell us that Christ said He would be with His Church until the consummation of the world.

The gates of Hell will never prevail over his Church.

Pharisee-ism exists in all religions. It is simplistic and easy to say that ALL Catholic clergy are Pharisees without any evidence to back your claim.

I agree, we should all be following Christ now but which one? There are thousands of 'ecclesial communities' all claiming to be the ONE TRUE church, all selling their version of Christ.

We are not shopping for a car, we are talking about eternal life. Christians need to be discerning, ask themselves:

Does it bear the four marks/attributes of a true church?

It's ALL about linking back to Christ and only one Church can make that claim.

"Why would someone want a Chinese made Louis Vuitton knockoff which never lasts when they can have the original."
J.Spencer ( good friend/ex-Baptist Catholic convert Easter 2011)

Christ Church is not a building or institution but believers. As far as Churches go there is not one true one just many different ones

 

[LOCO]

Disagreed. There may be some really far out denoms that do teach a different Christ, but that is the exception and not the rule. I do agree that is the central issue though! And the RCC may not be the only one claiming to be the one true Church, but that is not a common thing either.

Maybe we may all agree on who Jesus was etc. the basics.

But what about the meat and potatos. The stuff that determines whether we go to heaven/hell.

Whose doctrine is sound?

How do you determine that and by which authority? I would have to go with the Church whose authority defined the Bible.

Anyone can claim that they teach by the authority of Christ. Are they all led by the Holy Spirit?

 

[mark46]

This statement is arrogant and incorrect. All the apostolic churches claim the link back to Christ: RCC, OO, EO and Anglican. Lutherans and Methodists tend not to make the claim, but they also can be argued to be apostolic churches and have the unbroken link back to the apostles.

In 800, the Roman portain of the church was less than 1/3 of Christianity and was in shambles. The church in Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa was much bigger. Rome chose to add doctrines and to split from the rest. I am not judging on right or wrong, but it is very misleading for Rome to now claim to be the only church that can claim to be the one Church.

Most Protestants have no interest in the visible CHurch. For them the "one" in the Creed refers to the invisible chruch. I believe that they are incorrect. The Protestant denominations are denominations of the Western Church , in schism with Rom. Through Rome, they also trace their roots back to the apostles. However, for them, to be apostolic is trace your roots back to the teachings of the apostles.

I agree that there are those Protestants who seem to be in heresy. They do not trace their roots back to the teachings of the apostles, but rather only to Scripture. This may sound like the same, but it clearly is not. The apostles passed on much more and less than the 66 books of Scripture (as most Protestants count).

The BOTTOM LINE, is that the Roman Catholic Church is not the only church claiming to be the one Church.

.

It's ALL about linking back to Christ and only one Church can make that claim.

 

[LOCO]

You can call it what you like, but it was not the RCC we have today. It was the Body of believers the Lord led, and only infallible as far as truth is separated from error.



Try the Church of Jerusalem, older than the Church of Rome, never submitted to any Pope, and left the RCC over that and many other issues. (Ouch, you really didn't want to go there, did you?) I have no need to denigrate your Faith, but these are acceptable reasons for me not to submit to the Church of Rome, since you asked. I can hope you are called by G-d to your local Church, and are Faithful in that.

A couple issues I need to raise, since I understand Spiritual warfare rather well:

flesh and blood is not your enemy. Nothing wrong with cheering for the home team I suppose, but why intentionally pit yourself against fellow believers? Throwing down the challenge of "2000 year unbroken history," certainly you are aware that lineages of Bishops do not corroborate one another back to Peter? And that qualifications for Bishop included "teach the same?"

It would seem that sound Doctrine is what matters. Clearly it is the Doctrine of the Apostles that is relevant here, as nothing else can truly be established. And what is sound doctrine? I know RC's aren't much for simplicity, but Peter was much simpler than Paul, and even Paul boiled things down to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Those are your battle lines, Sister!

I am stating my faith and why I believe the CC is the one true Church. I think we are all adult enough and secure enough in our own faith not to get upset or rattled by questions asked or arguments posed.

The seat of Peter always held primacy before the Schism of 1054. The Pope was always first among equals. They broke away from the CC.

Doctrine is more than just the death, burial and ressurrection of Our Lord. It must include instruction on how to live a Christian life. Throughout history the flock has been taught, guided and corrected first by Jesus and then the Apostles and now the Clergy.

One Christian or ecclesial community may say 'well, inappropriate contentography is not mentioned in the Bible, so there is nothing sinful about it' and a Christian could justify his bad behaviour away. Another may take a certain passage to mean 'he has cut off his family' because they don't agree with him being a Christian.Too much is left for 'personal interpretation'.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Why is the bible authoritative?

​

Why is the bible considered a "divinely inspired" and "authoritative" text? I certainly do believe that there is wisdom to be had and in my personal walk with Christ many things from the bible have been affirmed (such as the divinity of Christ and the love of god etc). However can we take the whole book (with or without the Apocrypha) as divinely inspired and infallible? When many things can be seen as cultural influences from the time of Jesus (for example the role of women in the church etc)?

One reason is that the Bible contains predictive prophecy. The prophecy of naming the small village that the Christ would be born in hundreds of yeasr before it a happened it pretty impressive to me.

Reprint below is from Evidence that Demands a Verdict
Author----Josh McDowell

Prophecy
CONSIDER
Other books claim divine inspiration, such as the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and parts of the (Hindu) Veda. But none of these books contains predictive prophecy.
Mohammedanism cannot point to any prophecies of the coming of Mohammed uttered hundreds of years before his birth.

PROPHECY
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the Thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting."
-Micah 5:2
In Matthew 2:6 the scribes told Herod with great assurance that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem. It was well known among the Jews that the Christ would come from Bethle­hem (see John 7:42). It is only fitting that Bethlehem, meaning the house of bread, should be the birthplace of the one who is the Bread of Life. (Henry, MHC, 1414)
God now eliminates all the cities in the world, save one, for the entrance of His incarnate Son.

FULFILLMENT
"Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea." -Matthew 2:1

Reprint above is from Evidence That Demands a Verdict----Josh McDowell

 

[LOCO]

This statement is arrogant and incorrect. All the apostolic churches claim the link back to Christ: RCC, OO, EO and Anglican. Lutherans and Methodists tend not to make the claim, but they also can be argued to be apostolic churches and have the unbroken link back to the apostles.

.

It's ALL about linking back to Christ and only one Church can make that claim.

All the Apostolic Churches broke away from the CC. The Pope always held primacy before the schism. He is first among equals.

 

[ARBITER01]

Actually, the Scriptures existed in a loose canon for a long time before there were formally canonized.

That is exactly correct.

We have those churches described in those letters from Paul and others to thanks for holding onto those letters and allowing copies of them.

That is why we have a NT canon to add to the OT.

 

[razeontherock]

All the Apostolic Churches broke away from the CC.

This is an amazing claim! Of 5 main Churches, Rome wound up all by herself. The other 4 broke away from Rome? It rather seems like Rome broke away from them. They all cite Rome adding Doctrine.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Christ Church is not a building or institution but believers. As far as Churches go there is not one true one just many different ones

Not an institution?

15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Tell me, how does this make any sense of the Church is not an institution, instituted by Christ himself? Jesus didn't say 'go and tell the bible', or 'argue with him out of the Scripture relentlessly.' He said go to the Church, and if he won't hear the Church, treat him like a heathen. And we all know Paul said not to fellowship with heathens.

 

[mark46]

If the Roman Church had believed in primacy, that the pope was the first among equals, we might be one Church today. The EO has such a doctrine. The role of the pope is NOT first among equals.

This statement is arrogant and incorrect. All the apostolic churches claim the link back to Christ: RCC, OO, EO and Anglican. Lutherans and Methodists tend not to make the claim, but they also can be argued to be apostolic churches and have the unbroken link back to the apostles.





All the Apostolic Churches broke away from the CC. The Pope always held primacy before the schism. He is first among equals.

 

[Deut 5:29]

Why is the bible authoritative?

Simple, it proves itself.

 

[mark46]

If the Roman Church had believed in primacy, that the pope was the first among equals, we might be one Church today. The EO has such a doctrine. My understanding of RCC doctrine, the role of the pope is NOT first among equals. The role of Peter is supremacy and infallibility.

I am stating my faith and why I believe the CC is the one true Church. I think we are all adult enough and secure enough in our own faith not to get upset or rattled by questions asked or arguments posed.

The seat of Peter always held primacy before the Schism of 1054. The Pope was always first among equals. They broke away from the CC.

Doctrine is more than just the death, burial and ressurrection of Our Lord. It must include instruction on how to live a Christian life. Throughout history the flock has been taught, guided and corrected first by Jesus and then the Apostles and now the Clergy.

One Christian or ecclesial community may say 'well, inappropriate contentography is not mentioned in the Bible, so there is nothing sinful about it' and a Christian could justify his bad behaviour away. Another may take a certain passage to mean 'he has cut off his family' because they don't agree with him being a Christian.Too much is left for 'personal interpretation'.

 

[mark46]

While these are all good questions, I reject the premise. Jesus IS the meat and potatoes of our faith. What believe about the life, death, resurrection and the second coming of Jesus is THE most important doctrine; it is the dogma of our faith. You imply if we get our relationship and understanding of Jesus right, then we are still in grave risk because we don't understand doctrine. I don't believe that at all.

For me, "getting to heaven" is not about rules contained in doctrines, whether enunciated in Scripture, creeds, in other traditions of the church. or in interpretations of church bodies or individuals.

"Getting to heaven" is about our relationship to Jesus. In the end, Jesus will accept us as His friends, or not.

Maybe we may all agree on who Jesus was etc. the basics.

But what about the meat and potatos. The stuff that determines whether we go to heaven/hell.

Whose doctrine is sound?

How do you determine that and by which authority? I would have to go with the Church whose authority defined the Bible.

Anyone can claim that they teach by the authority of Christ. Are they all led by the Holy Spirit?

 

[LinuxUser]

Not an institution?

15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Tell me, how does this make any sense of the Church is not an institution, instituted by Christ himself? Jesus didn't say 'go and tell the bible', or 'argue with him out of the Scripture relentlessly.' He said go to the Church, and if he won't hear the Church, treat him like a heathen. And we all know Paul said not to fellowship with heathens.

That says absolutely nothing about an institution your reading into the text

 

[hedrick]

That says absolutely nothing about an institution your reading into the text

It depends upon what you think "church" means in the NT. It's certainly congregations, not just people who happen to meet on the street corner. So there's some institutional aspects to it. However it doesn't seem like there's anything beyond individual congregations other than traveling leaders and people back in Jerusalem who most people respect. So institutional sort of, but not yet The Church as a single institution.

 

[LinuxUser]

Yes I was thinking along the lines of congregations as opposed to a single gigantic institution

 

[sunlover1]

How do we know 'what' they taught and how do we know they taught without error?

The Bible did not exist at that time.

That doesnt answer the question at all though, does it?

It was only canonised by the authority of the CC. If you don't agree with the authority of the CC then you don't agree with the authority of the Bible.

This is a very dangerous (and false) doctrine.

It was never used for personal intepretation until recently when every other man and/or woman decided they could interpret Scripture for themselves which has resulted in the confusion and chaos we see now.

Our Father/ Friend/ Groom/ would never ever want us to "personally" get
a blessing from reading His words without YOUR CHURCH telling us what
HE meant
LOL.. hope you see how silly that might sound .. and reconsider..
Or at LEAST, stop telling folks such a thing about our God.

Is the Holy Spirit guiding all of them in their intepretation of doctrine?

The Holy Spirit can NEVER be the author of confusion.

You tell me.
If I ask God (Holy Spirit) to help me understand His word..
is HE going to confuse me? He is NEVER the author of confusion.
Wait, ... Or is He going to say, "Nope.. I do NOT want you reading
the Bible Sunlover!! You go find some other man to read what I
said and then tell you what he thinks I meant.."

 

[ivebeenshown]

You tell me.
If I ask God (Holy Spirit) to help me understand His word..
is HE going to confuse me? He is NEVER the author of confusion.

Well, the "Holy Spirit" can apparently tell Adventists that Michael the Archangel is Christ, and tell the Westboro Baptists that it's okay to picket funerals, and tell Giver to post on here saying that if any of us sin we are not a spiritual Christian.