Is scripture the highest authority?

[Received]

If we use your methadology friend then why not apply it to every part of your life, like......

Roads and traffic rule book
Legislative rule book
Product disclosure statements for your health, house, contents and car insurance
Your house title deeds
Banking statements

All the above is adolatry according to your inference right?

We're talking about the highest authority.

 

[Berean777]

We're talking about the highest authority.

I replied to the thread topic in the following post....

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ighest-authority.7961484/page-4#post-70010540

To put forth an argument that scripture isn't the highest authority is to deny that it is the inspired written word of God and thereby deny that God is the author through the lips of the prophets who have written down what was instructed of them.

For example Moses wrote the 10 commandments and since we don't have the original tablets before us, does that mean that the Ten Commandments are not the highest authority.

You see if God is the author of scripture, then what is written is the highest authority.
To argue that scripture isn't the highest authority is denying the highest authority who authored it.

Now that being said, if God speaks today to us through the Spirit of truth, then that also is the highest authority, that will not contradict the written word.

Now that being said, if God speaks today to us through the Son, then that also is the highest authority, that will not contradict the written word.

Do the words of Jesus ring a bell.......

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,
(John 5:39)

All authorship of God whether it is written, revealed by ear or by sight is the highest authority. So who can make distinction that the written word has less authority?

Hmmmmmmmmm......

 

[Received]

I replied to the thread topic in the following post....

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ighest-authority.7961484/page-4#post-70010540

To put forth an argument that scripture isn't the highest authority is to deny that it is the inspired written word of God and thereby deny that God is the author through the lips of the prophets who have written down what was instructed of them.

For example Moses wrote the 10 commandments and since we don't have the original tablets before us, does that mean that the Ten Commandments are not the highest authority.

You see if God is the author of scripture, then what is written is the highest authority.
To argue that scripture isn't the highest authority is denying the highest authority who authored it.

Now that being said, if God speaks today to us through the Spirit of truth, then that also is the highest authority, that will not contradict the written word.

Now that being said, if God speaks today to us through the Son, then that also is the highest authority, that will not contradict the written word.

Do the words of Jesus ring a bell.......



All authorship of God whether it is written, revealed by ear or by sight is the highest authority. So who can make distinction that the written word has less authority?

Hmmmmmmmmm......

If what is written is the highest authority, this logically means that the person who wrote doesn't have highest authority. Either the author or the message have the highest authority.

As for the John passage, that's exactly the passage I use to point out that scripture doesn't have the highest authority. Jesus is stating very plainly that the scriptures don't provide eternal life, but he does. If scripture doesn't provide eternal life, how can it be a higher authority than the one who does?

 

[Berean777]

If what is written is the highest authority, this logically means that the person who wrote doesn't have highest authority. Either the author or the message have the highest authority.

That is a false supposition, because the person writing the message never claims to be the author. The prophet always claims that he is the messenger of the word. So God is the author of that message and this validates the assertion that what the messenger writes is not from him but from God who chose and sent him.

 

[Berean777]

As for the John passage, that's exactly the passage I use to point out that scripture doesn't have the highest authority. Jesus is stating very plainly that the scriptures don't provide eternal life, but he does. If scripture doesn't provide eternal life, how can it be a higher authority than the one who does?

I knew that is what you use before you told me. This verse I pointed out to verify the authenticity of the written word's authorship and it certainly isn't by the messenger who wrote it.

Jesus stated that he is the highest authority doesn't in any way diminish the authority of scripture, but asserts that it can be misunderstood.

Just because it is misinterpreted and misunderstood by people even today, it doesn't by any means diminish its authority.

 

[Received]

That is a false supposition, because the person writing the message never claims to be the author. The prophet always claims that he is the messenger of the word. So God is the author of that message and this validates the assertion that what the messenger writes is not from him but from God who chose and sent him.

I'm not talking about the person who literally wrote the message. I'm talking about God. If what is written has the highest authority, then God can't have the highest authority.

I knew that is what you use before you told me. This verse I pointed out to verify the authenticity of the written word's authorship and it certainly isn't by the messenger who wrote it.

Jesus stated that he is the highest authority doesn't in any way diminish the authority of scripture, but asserts that it can be misunderstood.

Just because it is misinterpreted and misunderstood by people even today, it doesn't by any means diminish its authority.

If Jesus is the highest authority, scripture isn't the highest authority. If scripture is the highest authority, Jesus isn't the highest authority. That simple.

To say that God as he exists now and works through the Logos (Christ) and the holy spirit has the highest authority doesn't mean that scripture is useless; it's actually incredibly helpful in understanding God and revealing our sinfulness, among other things. It's a matter of hierarchy: God first, scripture second.

 

[Berean777]

I'm not talking about the person who literally wrote the message. I'm talking about God. If what is written has the highest authority, then God can't have the highest authority.

Again you are making a false supposition.

God is Spirit (John 4:24)

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63)

Your supposition is based on a false premise. God doesn't loose his authority from one form of communication to another. It is the same word wether it be written or spoken or seen for God is omnipresent Spirit.

When Jesus said the following he credits the words to the highest authority.....

For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. (John 12:49)

The words are of the Spirit and are truth and once this is authenticated then it is the highest authority without distinction.

Jesus authenticated scripture in the same way he authenticated what he spoke in the verse above.

 

[Berean777]

If Jesus is the highest authority, scripture isn't the highest authority. If scripture is the highest authority, Jesus isn't the highest authority. That simple.

God first, scripture second.

Again a false supposition your making. Jesus authenticated scripture as being the highest authority. This doesn't mean that if Jesus spoke that he speaks with less authority. Jesus spoke with the same authority as the written words that we read about him and what he said and taught 2000 years ago.

If scripture is first as the authenticated gospel of Jesus Christ then certainly the God who was made known through the scriptures is most certainly first.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I fail to see how my comment is hypocritical.

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

I asked you to show me in the Bible where it says it needs to be in the Bible, you failed to do so. If you could back up your concept of Sola Scriptura, then by all means. Sola Scriptura says "Scripture Alone", but how can you come to that conclusion if it does not state that in the Bible itself?

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

Also, "all the churches that follow Sola Scriptura" all happen to disagree on major things in the Bible. Hence there being close to 40k different denominations of Christianity.

Case in point, there are denominations that believe Baptism is symbolic, while others view it as a sacrament. Some do not believe in the Trinity, while others do. Some believe Jesus had biological siblings, whiles others believe that He did not.

Like I pointed out many times already, correct or incorrect interpretation of scripture has nothing to do with the authority of God's word.

By stating Sola Scriptura, you cannot tell me that I "do not understand that verse" because you have rejected all authority in terms of understanding scripture and place authority on the individual.

If you actually read scripture, you would find a way of testing what any person was teaching.

The mass is in the Bible, everything we Catholics believe is in the Bible. Would you go up to J R R Tolkien and say "hey, I read your books! I can totally understand what you are trying to say in this part.", and if he answered you are wrong go "No, you don't know your own book. I told you that you mean this."

I never said the Catholic Church WROTE the Bible, I said that it PUT THE BIBLE TOGETHER. Those are 2 very different statements.

I quoted what you said and it was not PUT THE BIBLE TOGETHER. Why don't you read your own post.
Your point of the J R Tolkien analogy belies what you now state. Also, others Catholics have stated that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible.

The NT of the Holy Bible was beginning to be wrote around 30 years after Christs death, however there was no telling the difference between divinely inspired books and false books. Did you know there was a Gospel of James? How about the Gospel of Peter? Acts of Pilot? Gospel of Barnabas?

There were roughly 25 different gospels going around all claiming to be divinely inspired. How was anyone to know which were and which were not?

It wasn't until the 4th century that the Catholic Church got together in councils and started to piece together which books were divinely inspired. This started in the year 325 at the Council of Nicaea, and later the Bible was out as 1 book, and the Church declared that these were the divinely inspired books.

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

The Highest point of Authority on earth about God is His Church, the 1 Church that he started. The Catholic Church.

You continually repeat it. Do you have any proof to support your statement?

Jesus did not come down and give us a Bible, He gave us a Church. And that Church is His Bride and faithfully follows the teachings of her Husband.

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

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.

That last statement is mental gymnastics.

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

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

 

[Received]

@Berean777, are you saying that the word of God is the word of God, whether in written form or direct communication?

 

[Berean777]

@Berean777, are you saying that the word of God is the word of God, whether in written form or direct communication?

Yes, it can even be a thought, a vision, a visitation like the acts of the apostles, a verbal instruction, a heart's conviction.

All in the same is the word which doesn't contradict the written word.

 

[Berean777]

At the end of the day the authenticity of the word in which ever mode it may be is not contradictory, rather it reinforces what is already written. This establishes authorship from the one devine and almighty being.

 

[Received]

Yes, it can even be a thought, a vision, a visitation like the acts of the apostles, a verbal instruction, a heart's conviction.

All in the same is the word which doesn't contradict the written word.

If the written word of God is a subset of the word of God, it doesn't follow to say that the written form has the highest authority. That's like saying a subset of the alphabet (e.g., letters l-x) has higher authority (the highest authority) than the entire alphabet.

 

[Berean777]

Highest authority is not limited to which ever mode it may be, it is the highest authority.

If you believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God, then you are agreeing that God is the author and if so then this is the highest authority as if God is speaking directly into your ears, heart, mind or which ever medium that we physical creatures can receive.

 

[Received]

Highest authority is not limited to which ever mode it may be, it is the highest authority.

If you believe that the Holy Bible is the word of God, then you are agreeing that God is the author and if so then this is the highest authority as if God is speaking directly into your ears, heart, mind or which ever medium that we physical creatures can receive.

I disagree. If X is dependent on Y, then Y has more authority than X. The Bible is dependent on God, therefore God has more authority than the Bible. God isn't the Bible, just as God isn't his words.

 

[Berean777]

If the written word of God is a subset of the word of God, it doesn't follow to say that the written form has the highest authority. That's like saying a subset of the alphabet (e.g., letters l-x) has higher authority (the highest authority) than the entire alphabet.

But this is where you confuse yourself through human reasoning. Think of God as Spirit, the almighty consciousness. Now in which ever manner of delivery he chooses to impart his word, the authorship is the same. If God said 7000 years ago I Am that I Am, then this is the highest authority. God isn't going to say something differently 7000 years later.

The word of God transcends time, space and the mode of delivery. When we hold up the Holy Bible, we acknowledge that it is only a paper print, but the internalised meaning, purpose and authorship is what is revered and not the print itself.

If my earthly dad said I always loved you. Then that statement whether he said it to me directly when he lived or wrote it down is what is intrinsically important to me because I know it is from my dad. In the case of Holy scriptures it is our heavenly Father speaking to us as if it was yesturday. The same applies to the words of Jesus.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I disagree. If X is dependent on Y, then Y has more authority than X. The Bible is dependent on God, therefore God has more authority than the Bible. God isn't the Bible, just as God isn't his words.

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

 

[Berean777]

I disagree. If X is dependent on Y, then Y has more authority than X. The Bible is dependent on God, therefore God has more authority than the Bible. God isn't the Bible, just as God isn't his words.

This is a double standard fallacy where you place more favor and weight on X than Y or vice versa and by so doing contradict logical thought processes that lead you to your biased subjective decision based answer.

The Fallacy of the Double Standard: This fallacy consists in holding up one standard for a favored group or person and a totally different standard for an unfavored group or person. For example, according to the popular media (predominantly Democrat), Dan Quayle (a Republican) is not fit to be President of the United States because he misspelled potato (potatoe). But Bill Clinton (a Democrat) can commit perjury, adultery, and sexually abuse a woman young enough to be his daughter and lie about it under oath, and remain--in the eyes of the liberal media--a good president because “his private life has nothing to do with his public life.”

 

[Berean777]

In so doing you are unwittingly saying that God's highest authority has nothing to do with his written word. In this regard you have presented a god who does not transcend time and space and is limited to certain time space and mode of delivering his word that may be one thing today and another tomorrow.

 

[Received]

But this is where you confuse yourself through human reasoning.

And you then go on to use human reasoning to make your point.

Think of God as Spirit, the almighty consciousness. Now in which ever manner of delivery he chooses to impart his word, the authorship is the same. If God said 7000 years ago I Am that I Am, then this is the highest authority. God isn't going to say something differently 7000 years later.

The word of God transcends time, space and the mode of delivery. When we hold up the Holy Bible, we acknowledge that it is only a paper print, but the internalised meaning, purpose and authorship is what is revered and not the print itself.

If my earthly dad said I always loved you. Then that statement whether he said it to me directly when he lived or wrote it down is what is intrinsically important to me because I know it is from my dad. In the case of Holy scriptures it is our heavenly Father speaking to us as if it was yesturday. The same applies to the words of Jesus.

We're looking at this from different perspectives, then. You're seeming to emphasize that whatever mode God uses to communicate to a person in that moment is the highest authority. No disagreement there.

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