The "Final Authority" = the Bible

[linssue55]

A sorry reason to stick ones head in the sand is the length of a post. Frankly I did not think it was that long and came under the required number of words.

I think you just cant face reality.

the unworthy

kyril

Reality will look you right in the eye one day (when the Lord returns) and ASK?, why? did you not listen to those that tried to tell you?

 

[Lynn73]

Jesus Christ places the bible above His own name? Your are kidding right?

God the Father does:


Ps 138:2 - Show Context I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

And Jesus would agree with the Father.

Jesus said "tell it to the Church" Matthew 18 O' ye rebellious one that makes the Church the final authority according to Jesus Christ. He did not say "tell it to my book" as much as the protestant thinks his bible "talks".

The church of Christ will abide by the written word of God. The Bible does NOT teach that the church is the final authority, it's being read into the Scripture. That wouldn't even be logical or have common sense. The Bible is the word of God and it's the truth therefore what it says is the final authority and Christ's true church will be grounded in that truth and uphold that truth.

Jesus Christ is God. The Church is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the final authority. Again where did Jesus Christ give the bible "final authority" over a Christians life?

The church is NOT Jesus Christ, nor is it God. The church (all Christians) is the bride of Jesus Christ and His body. Jesus spent a lot of time saying "it is written", not "the church says." Jesus Christ is never going to contradict the written word of God. They go hand in hand and one won't contradict the other.

Ditto goes for the protestants that make themselves popes.

the unworthy

kyril

I don't see any such thing in the Bible as popes. Protestants make the Father in heaven their papa, we're not our own papa/pope.

Basically, it's certain churches who want to have the final authority and power over people and make the word of God subject to them. If your prefer to believe your church has final authority on what's true and what isn't, I can't stop you. But I won't join you.

Here's a very good article someone shared with me for anyone who might care to read it:


http://www.bereanbeacon.org/CertaintyWrittenWordTruth.html


Joh 17:17 - Show Context Sanctify them through thytruth: thywordistruth.

Notice that it's the word that is the truth, not the church. It doesn't say "thy church is truth." The word is the authority and the church is to uphold that word. And any church that doesn't is in error.

 

[Lynn73]

Reality will look you right in the eye one day (when the Lord returns) and ASK?, why? did you not listen to those that tried to tell you?

Sadly true.

 

[Trento]

You have confused me to the point of spinning.

Scripture is the final authority in this way, anything claimed to be Christian doctrine, must not contradict scripture.

Is this difficult?

Let me write it another way,

If a doctrine contradicts scripture, then it is false.

Lets make this an argument,

God preached the Good News to men. These men and their followers wrote down what God said. What is written down is called scripture. Therefore, to know what God has said, people read scripture. If someone says God said something, and this something contradicts what is in scripture, then God didn't say it.

Hello Sean, Let me give you just one example of many i can give


One of the dreadful consequences of division is lack of successful evangelism. Division depletes and diminishes our ability to reach the lost. In Jesus' prayer for unity, he asks:

"I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." (John 17:20-21​

Jesus prayed these words in the Upper Room on the night of his betrayal, knowing that crucifixion would follow with the coming sunrise. The words are part of his final words, and final words have a history of being intense, focused and passionate. So it was with Jesus. Never before had the disciples heard him pray like this.​

That they may be one. For this he would sweat blood, endure mockery and freely lay down his life. To make this brief prayer efficacious, he would rise in Easter glory and in the power of the Holy Spirit be permanently in the world, gathering into "one" the whole people of God. One shepherd, as he had promised, and one flock would follow. The apostolic messengers would proclaim one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all. ​

Protestant Bibical Historians give us an indication of how the Church has always operated in re guard to the Bible and Apostolic Tradition here. ​

Philip Schaff, a major Protestant church historian from last century writes in his History of the Christian Church -- ​

"The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects -- TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606) ​

J.N.D. Kelly, a major Protestant church historian from this century writes in his Early Christian Doctrines -- (after many examples) ​

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (page 47-4​

Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51) ​

If you read early Christian History you will find that there were many heretical sects who claimed that they were correct in their Bible interpretation and like these historians tell us when this came up the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, is the TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles.​

The Church operates the same way today and today we have the same problem as the early Church. Different Churches bring different interpretations to the Bible splitting the body of Christ into many pieces which is against what Jesus prayed for. ​

Now here is just one modern example of what happens when Apostolic legacy is lost.​

Christadelphianism ​

1. They believe the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God. (The Christadelphians: What They Believe and Preach, p. 82)

2 They teach that Jesus had a sin nature (What They Believe, p. 74)
​

3 They teach that Jesus needed to save himself, before he could save us. (Christadelphian Answers, p. 24)​

4 They teach that Jesus will return and set up his kingdom on earth. (What They Believe , p. 268)​

5 They deny the doctrine of the Trinity. (What They Believe, p. 84-87) ​

6 They deny immortality of the soul. (What They Believe , p. 17). ​

7 They deny that Jesus is God in flesh. (Answers, p. 22) ​

8 They deny that Jesus existed prior to his incarnation. (What They Believe , p. 85,86) ​

9 They deny the existence of hell and eternal punishment. (What They Believe, p. 188-189​

 

[relspace]

Yet now I think many protestants would say thank God for those abuses, for they have given us the cause to liberate ourselves from an overly ritualized and authoritarian expression of Christianity.

In fact I would say that God let the Catholic church pass into corruption according to plan and then inspired the Protestant reformation for just this reason. Some like to say that God is not a God of confusion, but they would be very wrong. The breaking up of the church is entirely consistent with God's policy with mankind since the Flood. Man's fundamental problem is the failure to take responsibility for things (passing the buck and all that) and it seems that when men organize, this tendency is greatly amplified.

Everything in the world around us shows us that God is a God of diversity and history has proven that diversity is a serious stumbling block for the devil for it fustrates his desire to rule the world with absolute control. In diversity God can also get beyond the limitations of those human beings with power and influence. I am reminded of God's opposition to Israel's demand for a king in the time of Samuel and I wonder if God's reasons are not related to what I have been talking about. In any case, is not God the true author of history, and therefore is not the protestant reformation His will. If this is the case, then perhaps instead of denouncing it, you should be trying to understand the why of it.

 

[Trento]

In fact I would say that God let the Catholic church pass into corruption according to plan and then inspired the Protestant reformation for just this reason. Some like to say that God is not a God of confusion, but they would be very wrong. The breaking up of the church is entirely consistent with God's policy with mankind since the Flood. Man's fundamental problem is the failure to take responsibility for things (passing the buck and all that) and it seems that when men organize, this tendency is greatly amplified.

quote]

I take it you are in a sinless Church. Do you believe this scripture?
Woe to the world because of scandals! For it must needs be that scandals come,
but WOE TO THE MAN THROUGH WHOM SCANDAL DOES COME!"
Matthew 18:7

And He said to His disciples, "It is IMPOSSIBLE THAT SCANDALS SHOULD NOT COME;
BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM THEY COME."
Luke 17:1
These are the words of Jesus Christ Himself. Did he say the Church is the source, or the cause of the scandals? No, He said a man (or woman, to be politically correct for the time of the Gospel writing) is. Remember, the Catholic Church is not a hotel for saints, it is a hospital for sinners (Mark 2:17)I also believe Jesus when He said this abou His Church.

"I am with you ALL days, even until the end of the world."
Matthew 28:20

"...and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it."
Matthew 16:18

"...and I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of Truth..."
John 14:16-17

"I will not leave you orphans."
John 14:18

"...a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church, BEING HIMSELF SAVIOR OF THE BODY."
Ephesians 5:23
Isn't Saint Paul saying that Jesus Christ is the Savior of His Church here?
Well then, just who are you fighting against anyway?

 

[relspace]

I take it you are in a sinless Church. Do you believe this scripture?

I do not really understand the significance of the scriptures you quoted. But in case you misunderstood, I did not in any way intend to put down the Catholic church, the words "pass into corruption", were meant to refer to events in the RC in the period BEFORE the Protestant reformation, which brought great reform to the Catholic church as well. These events are a matter of historical record and clearly show that this was a dark time for the Catholic church, when many offices in the church were passed around as political capital.

To answer your question, of course not. Though my church is doing marvelously well at this time, it has had its troubles in the past. Protestant churches, being much smaller make frequent mistakes but then being smaller, they much more easily correct those mistakes. The Catholic church is far less prone to error but when there is error it is truly tragic and more difficult to deal with.

 

[fwiwwl]

Where did Jesus Christ "ordain and send" the bible into all the world to preach the gospel?

Where did Jesus Christ proclaim the scripture as the "final authroity" in a Christians life?

How can a book that is not complete in the stories and teachings of Jesus Christ be the "final authority" in anything?

What makes the protestant faith think the RCC is the Church to rebel and protest against?

pondering

kyril

The Church is the final authority as long as Jesus is the Head and the Word and the Source of truth!

 

[Lynn73]

And as long as they look to the word of God as their authority instead of to themselves.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I take it you are in a sinless Church.

The only denomination I know that self-claims infallibity for itself is the Roman Catholic denomination (although the LDS comes pretty close).


Personally, I accept no institution as infallible. I don't even know how an institution can be infallible. But we rather passionately disagree on this point.



My perspective


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[winsome]

Quote:
Where did Jesus Christ proclaim the scripture as the "final authroity" in a Christians life?

To which you replied

Jesus taught and referred to the scriptures as did the Apostles who wrote the NT letters.

Are you saying that the scriptures are a higher authority than Jesus?

 

[Trento]

The only denomination I know that self-claims infallibity for itself is the Roman Catholic denomination (although the LDS comes pretty close).


Personally, I accept no institution as infallible. I don't even know how an institution can be infallible. But we rather passionately disagree on this point.



My perspective


Pax


- Josiah



.

Those of the Protestant tradition essentially claim culture as their absolute standard, the gold standard against which everything is measured. Those of the secular atheist tradition claim faulty human reason as their absolute. Those of the Catholic tradition claim the fullness of divine revelation, both spoken and written, as the only True Absolute.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Those of the Catholic tradition claim the fullness of divine revelation, both spoken and written, as the only True Absolute.

The final authority for the RCC is the RCC.
The RCC self-claims that the "sole interpreter" is the RCC.
The RCC self-claims that the "sole arbiter" for faith and practice is the RCC.



In Sola Ecclesia, the "norm" is Tradition as the teacher himself so define, interprets and applies it. Scripture is a part of this, but only a part. The "authoritative voice" is himself, who often declares himself to be infallible and unaccountabe.


The source, authority and rule for faith and practice is a "a three legged stool" This consists of:
1. Holy Scriptures
2. Catholic Tradition
3. The Catholic Church
These 3: Scripture + Tradition + Denomination.
If any leg is removed (or even shortened), the stool falls.

"Tradition" here is OF COURSE, as THEY define it and interpret it (as is always the case in Sola Ecclesia). "It is the Authoritative Voice of the Catholic Church which decides what is and is not Tradition." The Apostle were taught some dogmas, etc., a long time ago, not limited to that recorded in God's Holy Scripture, but includes many things God would have us to know that isn't in the Bible. What the RC denomination regards as this Tradition is called by them "infallible preaching." (note term "infallible").


This "three-legged-stool" is ONE. These three things are inseparable and equal. That CANNOT be stressed enough, it is the key to understanding this. in Sola Ecclesia, it is assumed there no conflict, no separation, no distinction here. To use another illustration from the small US denomination that embraces this method of norming, it's not unlike our TV - using the 3 primary colors TOGETHER to form the whole picture - it would be incomplete at best if all we looked at was the red dots. This is critical to understanding how all this works.


All three are divine - from God (Scripture, CC Tradition, Catholic Church) and so all 3 are infallible and divine. God cannot lie. Nor can He contradict Himself or even be in conflict with Himself. This,too, is critical to understanding how this works in Sola Ecclesia.


So, if the Bible teaches something, Tradition as the CC defines and interprets it MUST teach that, even if such is not explicit (um, completely missing!), and the Catholic Church MUST also teach that, even if it's not explicit. Bible-Tradition-Church are ONE, they are equal, inseparable, true. Three legs of a stool, the 3 primary colors forming the picture.

If Tradition (as the CC defines and interprets) says something, the Bible MUST also teach that, even if such is not explicit (um, completely missing!), and the Catholic Church MUST also teach that, even if it's not explicit. Bible-Tradition-Church are ONE, they are equal, inseparable, true.

IF the Catholic Church teaches something, the Bible MUST also teach that, even if it's not explicit (um, even if completely missing!), and CC Tradition MUST also teach that, even if it's not explicit (it may take the church centuries to get around to it). Bible-Tradition-Church are ONE, they are equal, inseparable, true.


So, if you want to know what the Bible teaches, you MUST look equally to the Bible, Tradition of the CC and the Catholic Church, they each will develop the "whole picture." What the Catholic Church says is what the Bible says is what Tradition says - they CANNOT be in conflict - God does not lie or contradict Himself. They are ONE. They are inseparable.

If you want to know what is "Tradition" - which snippet of which person is divine revelation equal to Scripture and the Catholic Church - you look to Scripture and Catholic Church to tell you, only that denomination can so determine if what they teach. Remember, these 3 things are ONE. The Catholic Church is the "sole interpreter" of Scripture and the Tradition it has chosen, and the "sole arbiter" for whether the CC does so correct is the Three Legged Stool of Scripture + CC Tradition + the Catholic Church - equally, inseparately, in perfect harmony.

If you want to know which denomination is the Church of Christ, you have to look at all three things to get the complete answer: the Bible, Tradition (as the RCC so defines, interprets and applies) and the Catholic Church. Those 3 things - together - will answer that question, infallibly and authoritatively.


This approach does have one highly desired function: it's impossible to be wrong. It makes accountability completely moot - a point eventually made by those that embrace Sola Ecclesia. I've found it's this "I can't be wrong" aspect that causes them to embrace that is often acknowledged to be, well, less than promising as an epistemological process. Others see it as a nearly perfect circle, completely self-authenticating, and an aversion of accountability. The RC denomination (and the few other denominations that embrace Sola Ecclesia) of coures regard as it as infallible - but ONLY when they do it (it's renounced and ridiculed if any one else does what they insist in proper and infallible).



My $0.01


Pax


- Josiah

 

[relspace]

Those of the Protestant tradition essentially claim culture as their absolute standard, the gold standard against which everything is measured. Those of the secular atheist tradition claim faulty human reason as their absolute. Those of the Catholic tradition claim the fullness of divine revelation, both spoken and written, as the only True Absolute.

Ok you asked for it. If you are going to spout unsubstatiated nonsense like this then you can have it with both barrels. The fact of the matter is, that those who idolize the Catholic church as you do belong to an organization of men, while those in churches like mine, who make nothing of their church and everything of God belong to an organization of God. We look to God for our salvation and our real church is not where we meet but the body of Christ whose leader is Christ Himself. When you make so much of your church, you are looking to your church for your salvation, and having put your salvation in the hands of men you are in serious trouble.

 

[Orthocat]

Ok you asked for it. If you are going to spout unsubstatiated nonsense like this then you can have it with both barrels. The fact of the matter is, that those who idolize the Catholic church as you do belong to a organization of men, while those in churches like, who make nothing of their church and everything of God belong to an organization of God. We look to God for our salvation and our real church is not where we meet but the body of Christ whose leader is Christ Himself. When you make so much your church, you are looking to your church for your salvation, and having put your salvation in the hands of men you are in serious trouble.

Both barrels??? You shot him?? I think it may be transubstatiated, but I'm not sure about unsubstatiated nonsense. Unless you're using high fructose corn syrup.

Do you really think them there Kathlics worship their buildings as you suggest?

Do you think they worship an "organization"? Do you think they are an "organization"?

Is this considered an organization of men?
http://www.calvarychapel.org/

hmmm...

 

[Orthocat]

The final authority for the RCC is the RCC.
The RCC self-claims that the "sole interpreter" is the RCC.
The RCC self-claims that the "sole arbiter" for faith and practice is the RCC.



In Sola Ecclesia, the "norm" is Tradition as the teacher himself so define, interprets and applies it. Scripture is a part of this, but only a part. The "authoritative voice" is himself, who often declares himself to be infallible and unaccountabe.


The source, authority and rule for faith and practice is a "a three legged stool" This consists of:
1. Holy Scriptures
2. Catholic Tradition
3. The Catholic Church
These 3: Scripture + Tradition + Denomination.
If any leg is removed (or even shortened), the stool falls.

"Tradition" here is OF COURSE, as THEY define it and interpret it (as is always the case in Sola Ecclesia). "It is the Authoritative Voice of the Catholic Church which decides what is and is not Tradition." The Apostle were taught some dogmas, etc., a long time ago, not limited to that recorded in God's Holy Scripture, but includes many things God would have us to know that isn't in the Bible. What the RC denomination regards as this Tradition is called by them "infallible preaching." (note term "infallible").


This "three-legged-stool" is ONE. These three things are inseparable and equal. That CANNOT be stressed enough, it is the key to understanding this. in Sola Ecclesia, it is assumed there no conflict, no separation, no distinction here. To use another illustration from the small US denomination that embraces this method of norming, it's not unlike our TV - using the 3 primary colors TOGETHER to form the whole picture - it would be incomplete at best if all we looked at was the red dots. This is critical to understanding how all this works.


All three are divine - from God (Scripture, CC Tradition, Catholic Church) and so all 3 are infallible and divine. God cannot lie. Nor can He contradict Himself or even be in conflict with Himself. This,too, is critical to understanding how this works in Sola Ecclesia.


So, if the Bible teaches something, Tradition as the CC defines and interprets it MUST teach that, even if such is not explicit (um, completely missing!), and the Catholic Church MUST also teach that, even if it's not explicit. Bible-Tradition-Church are ONE, they are equal, inseparable, true. Three legs of a stool, the 3 primary colors forming the picture.

If Tradition (as the CC defines and interprets) says something, the Bible MUST also teach that, even if such is not explicit (um, completely missing!), and the Catholic Church MUST also teach that, even if it's not explicit. Bible-Tradition-Church are ONE, they are equal, inseparable, true.

IF the Catholic Church teaches something, the Bible MUST also teach that, even if it's not explicit (um, even if completely missing!), and CC Tradition MUST also teach that, even if it's not explicit (it may take the church centuries to get around to it). Bible-Tradition-Church are ONE, they are equal, inseparable, true.


So, if you want to know what the Bible teaches, you MUST look equally to the Bible, Tradition of the CC and the Catholic Church, they each will develop the "whole picture." What the Catholic Church says is what the Bible says is what Tradition says - they CANNOT be in conflict - God does not lie or contradict Himself. They are ONE. They are inseparable.

If you want to know what is "Tradition" - which snippet of which person is divine revelation equal to Scripture and the Catholic Church - you look to Scripture and Catholic Church to tell you, only that denomination can so determine if what they teach. Remember, these 3 things are ONE. The Catholic Church is the "sole interpreter" of Scripture and the Tradition it has chosen, and the "sole arbiter" for whether the CC does so correct is the Three Legged Stool of Scripture + CC Tradition + the Catholic Church - equally, inseparately, in perfect harmony.

If you want to know which denomination is the Church of Christ, you have to look at all three things to get the complete answer: the Bible, Tradition (as the RCC so defines, interprets and applies) and the Catholic Church. Those 3 things - together - will answer that question, infallibly and authoritatively.


This approach does have one highly desired function: it's impossible to be wrong. It makes accountability completely moot - a point eventually made by those that embrace Sola Ecclesia. I've found it's this "I can't be wrong" aspect that causes them to embrace that is often acknowledged to be, well, less than promising as an epistemological process. Others see it as a nearly perfect circle, completely self-authenticating, and an aversion of accountability. The RC denomination (and the few other denominations that embrace Sola Ecclesia) of coures regard as it as infallible - but ONLY when they do it (it's renounced and ridiculed if any one else does what they insist in proper and infallible).



My $0.01


Pax


- Josiah

You do realize, for what you just said, Martin Luther would have called you a heretic and kicked you out of his church.

 

[relspace]

but I'm not sure about unsubstatiated nonsense.

This feller made the outrageous claim that Protestants make culture their standard as opposed to divine revelation. That is unsubstantiated nonsense. In my church the Bible is the only standard. If the Bible is not your standard then perhaps it is your church traditions which are your standard and I would call that culture, and in that case it is you which make culture your absolute standard.

Do you really think them there Kathlics worship their buildings as you suggest?

No I don't, just the dumb ones. In my post I made no claim concerning all Catholics, unlike Trento who make an ourtrageous claim concerning all Protestants. That is a symptom of dumness.

Do you think they worship an "organization"?

When someone thinks that the difference between those who have culture as their absolute standard and those who have divine revelation as their standard, is simply membership in a church organization, then yes I think they worship an organization.

Is this considered an organization of men?
http://www.calvarychapel.org/

It most definitely is an organization of men! But its members do make much of it and do not look to it for salvation. This organization claims no special ownership of truth and no special relationship with God. It is organization of members of the body of Christ simply to serve members of the body of Christ that have a need for the services which it offers, always pointing not to itself but to Jesus. It is only one of many such organizations that do the same thing. None of the members of the Calvary Chapel organization are in least bit confused about this.

So how about your church, is it one of these organizations or is your church something different? Does your church serve members of the body of Christ or only itself? Does your church point to Jesus as Lord or to itself as Lord? And if your church serves members of the body of Christ and points to Jesus as Lord, then do the members of your church understand this clearly or are they a bit confused about it.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Quote:
Where did Jesus Christ proclaim the scripture as the "final authroity" in a Christians life?

Where did Jesus say that the church of Rome was the "one true church"?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

You do realize, for what you just said, Martin Luther would have called you a heretic and kicked you out of his church.

Wrong! Martin Luther made much stronger statements than those concerning the illegitimay of the Roman church.

 

[winsome]

Where did Jesus say that the church of Rome was the "one true church"?

I didn't say the quote you referred to - I was quoting someone else.

However the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus founded. Since he only founded one Church it is the "one true church". The various denominations didn't start until Martin Luther and the other "reformers" about 1500 years later.