Is scripture the highest authority?

[Berean777]

The word of God is the highest authority.

No one can disagree with the above statement.

Is scripture the inspired word of God?

If yes, then scripture is the highest authority.

Is scripture the only highest authority is what is being implied by the original poster?

No, because that would imply a limitation of the highest authority who is God, to the written word, yet we know that God speaks through the Spirit of Truth.

That being said, all things as Paul said would need to be tested and the test is based on the unwavering and unchangeble word of God, that would need to be consistent with the written word and not by any means contradict it.

So that the highest authority who is God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and any doctrine would be according to the efficacy and in line with the consistency of the unchangeble living word, whether written or spoken or seen.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Christ taught the Apostles, they appointed Bishops who appointed Bishops own to the present age. Hence the Church is the body of Bishops who as the Bible said is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Saying bishops in the first place would have avoided the confusion as the Church has multiple meanings to different people. Do you also hold to a select line of bishops having this authority or do all religious leaders have this higher authority? Would you state what church you follow that has this position?

Also, why do you bother saying the Bible says bishops are the higher authority? If bishops were actually the higher authority, than bishops would just declare it and no one would doubt it. Does not authority comes from higher to lower?

Note the Bible never claims to be the highest autority that idea is man made.

Note that the apostles never claimed to be inerrant or the highest authority. In fact scripture points out errors and disagreements in the apostles. Further, the apostles never stated that the hierarchy they established had the same authority as what Jesus gave them directly. You must concede that the authority conveyed from Jesus to be higher than by the apostles.

The concept of scripture being the highest authority on God's truth is based on a process of elimination. The elimination is that there is no other entity on earth that was given authority to speak for God. Therefore since scripture is our record on earth of God's word, it is supreme, not by self declaration but by process of elimination.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The apostles could claim special authority because they knew Christ personally. The next generation could doubtless claim special authority because they knew the apostles personally. But by the time you get to the tenth generation, and beyond, that is wearing a bit thin. That doesn't prevent a Church bent upon self aggrandisement from pushing it, of course.

I get your point, but note this. Authority on spiritual matters is not something to be claimed, it can only be given from one with higher authority. The very first 12 apostles called by Jesus were given special authority. Jesus said they would sit on 12 thrones. That is a fixed number, but it was increased by one when Jesus called Saul directly. The point is that these first 13 apostles had authority unique to them. They could speak for God. Their words were recorded in scripture that is hence closed.

While the apostles may have laid their hands on successors, the successors did not have the same authority that Jesus gave them. Proof being, the tenth generation successors do not heal, prophesy or create new scripture.

 

[Catherineanne]

My thread, my question. Your thread on SS is mired in multiple arguments and statements. The most offensive one I found was one by a fellow EO follower that said scripture was not the highest authority. In this thread I wish to argue THAT point and see how prevalent it is in the Christian body. Is it actually a stated doctrine of the EO church or any others? Is it just one person's individual belief?

Your response seems to indicate a yes answer that scripture is the highest authority, but it is not completely clear. Further the words of a fellow EO member says something different. Can you clarify with a yes or no answer and if that is the EO official doctrine?

There is a huge problem with the 'Scripture as highest authority' position. It is simply this; anyone can quote any Bible verse out of context and claim that as the final answer to any question, and their own authority equal to God's. That is a very dangerous path for any minister, any church. The Bible even warns against this:

Isaiah 28:13

Ironically, the final authority has to be Scripture itself; does the Bible say that it is the highest authority on earth? Nope. Nowhere; not even close. The Bible is useful for teaching. So is my Dictionary.

The Bible is very, very clear; authority lies with God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which makes the Holy Spirit the highest earthly authority, on behalf of the Godhead.

If I read from the Bible, or quote the Bible, I do NOT become God. Nothing like it. The Holy Spirit remains God.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The highest authority is the Holy Spirit + Scripture.

If the Holy Spirit left the Earth, there would be scripture but no ability to understand it truthfully. It's hard to believe but it's true. The Holy Spirit allows us to believe and understand scripture.

This is important because a lot of people today use scripture to argue against the Holy Spirit, and when they do, they ignore the Holy Spirit in their interpretation. Only those who would listen to the Holy Spirit could tell true teaching from false teaching.

But at a basic level, the Holy Spirit is involved when a scripture is believed in full context with understanding. It's that simple, even lost people can receive seeds from the word with the Holy Spirit assisting them.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is essential in helping us understand God's word. I would say traditions may also help in understanding God's word.

But, in my thread I wanted to keep it just on the absolute authority of incontrovertible truth currently physically present on earth. The truth stands despite anyone's understanding or even acknowledging it.

I wanted to keep the thread on the source of absolute truth to keep it away from the bigger question and mire of arguments in the Sola Scriptura discussions.

 

[Catherineanne]

Yes, the Holy Spirit is essential in helping us understand God's word. I would say traditions may also help in understanding God's word.

But, in my thread I wanted to keep it just on the absolute authority of incontrovertible truth currently physically present on earth. The truth stands despite anyone's understanding or even acknowledging it.

I wanted to keep the thread on the source of absolute truth to keep it away from the bigger question and mire of arguments in the Sola Scriptura discussions.

The Bible is not the absolute authority of incontrovertible truth. There is no such thing; that authority belongs ONLY to God, and he does not take kindly to us setting up idols and plating them with gold, not even Bible shaped ones.

As already stated, if we give ultimate authority to the Bible, we also give it to anyone who decides to quote from it and interpret it his or her own way; that is a very, very dangerous path. That is why interpretation has to be compared with traditional church creeds and beliefs; it prevents the nutters from making up their own religions. Just look at Islam for where that can lead to; no matter how conservative it gets there is always some nutter who thinks it can be more conservative, not from the words themselves, but from spurious interpretation.

Moslems regard the Koran in this way, but Christians are not Moslems. The Word of God is Christ himself, not a book.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

There is no authority higher than Christ's teachings because his teachings are inerrant. Again, the entire argument is not one of subordination, it's one of predication. The record of Christ's teachings is not subordinate to the Church, but neither is the Church predicated on that record; rather that record is predicated upon the Church. In other words, the Church could and would still validly exist whether or not there was any written New Testament, whereas the New Testament would not exist if the Church didn't write it.

The Church didn't write the N.T., a very few select number of mostly apostles wrote the words that Jesus spoke through them. The body of saints existed before the N.T. scripture was written, so what. Existence before matters for nothing. The Jewish priests with all their traditions are long gone in regard to a source of spiritual truths since they have rejected Christ.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The Church didn't write the N.T., a very few select number of mostly apostles wrote the words that Jesus spoke through them. The body of saints existed before the N.T. scripture was written, so what. Existence before matters for nothing. The Jewish priests with all their traditions are long gone in regard to a source of spiritual truths since they have rejected Christ.

I'm not sure what your point is. Mine is simply this: the NT is an expression of the Church, the Church is not an expression of the NT.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The Bible is not the absolute authority of incontrovertible truth. There is no such thing; that authority belongs ONLY to God,

I guess you missed the part of the question for something physical on earth today; something that we may use to learn what God wants us to learn. Your answer of God is a cop out as it does not answer the question of what source of truth we can use to teach and learn from and mostly test what we are taught.

and he does not take kindly to us setting up idols and plating them with gold, not even Bible shaped ones.

Understand that a book containing God's word is not an idol that God abhors. Don't be so dramatic. Study scripture to learn that God himself gave us the first book of his words. That would be the ten commandments written on stone.

 

[lesliedellow]

The same is true with bible interpretation though ..

No the same is not true of Bible interpretation. To take a trite example, "Thou shalt not steal," cannot easily be twisted into, "Thou shalt steal."

There may not be any absolutely bullet proof of establishing some objectivity in religion, but the Bible is certainly a big improvement on, "Whatever I pull out of my own head - that's the Holy Spirit talking to me."

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I'm not sure what your point is. Mine is simply this: the NT is an expression of the Church, the Church is not an expression of the NT.

Expression: the process of making known one's thoughts or feelings.

It should be clear, I have said it multiple times. The Church did not author or write or express/make their thoughts known with the N.T. A very select few, mostly apostles wrote down Jesus' words. These words were circulated before any church organization canonized scripture in the N.T. The NT is not an expression of the Church. The NT is a collection of words written many years previous to it becoming canon.

I wish you to grasp the concept that God's words are the truth. Jesus started the new covenant with his life and teachings on earth. These words/teachings are the basis for the Christian church. The fact that it took years for some religious organization to collect copies of previously written letters into what is called the Bible counts for nothing.

God's words existed the moment they were said/written. At that moment his truths were revealed. How much these words were physically copied matters not. They were instantly scripture, by authority of Jesus speaking them even when through apostles.

It is exactly the expression of Jesus' words/teachings that caused the Christian church to exist. Certainly not all of Jesus' words were recorded in what we now call the N.T., but we must assume the important truths for our salvation were. Don't quibble over insisting that scripture only existed after a church deemed certain books to be included in the Bible.

 

[Received]

The word of God isn't the highest authority; the Word of God (Logos) is the highest authority. The former is entailed in the latter, and is an example of the latter. Scripture gives you general principles for how to live your life, but it doesn't guide you by the hand in day-to-day matters. That's where Christ in incorporeal form (the Logos) comes in. Just as the written word is read with the eyes, the unwritten Word is read with the soul (consciousness).

It's like choosing to trust the writings of a friend from ten years ago when he's trying to get your attention in flesh and blood. This emphasis on the written word can actually culminate in idolatry. Not to mention that putting scripture on the highest authoritative pedestal means the illiterate are worse off than the literate.

 

[maryofoxford]

I've read this entire blog from the OP to this point. All I've gathered so far is that nobody seems to understand what anyone else is talking about.

You have the original poster, that as far as I know keeps asking, "What is the highest physical authority that we have on this earth?" Her claim (again, if I understand correctly) is that it is the Bible.

Than you have the other side that keeps trying to answer her by saying that it cannot be the Scriptures, because despite their being the words of God, they were the "inspired" words of God, and words are simply lines on paper. Without someone that knows how to read and properly interpret those words, they mean nothing. (I realize that sounds harsh. It even sounds harsh to me, who truly loves reading the word of God.) Furthermore the teachings and ideas existed from the beginning (if referring to the OT) and from Christ (if referring to the NT). Many years before they were put down on paper. Therefore it cannot be the Bible itself, but the infallible meaning to the words of God that is the highest authority. Who or what knows the infallible meaning to the words written in the Bible, why the Holy Spirit!

The OP responds, o.k., but again, what physical thing do we have on this earth that you'd say is the highest authority. The Holy Spirit is certainly God, but you cannot see or touch Him. So she believes that it must then be the Scriptures!

It keeps sounding like the story of which came first the chicken or the egg! Except, I believe that their may be a way (just maybe, by the grace of God) to satisfy both sides. Let's start with the Scriptures, only because that's where the OP started:

Do the Scriptures contain All of the Doctrines/Dogmas of the Christian faith? If we take the position that ONLY Scripture is the highest authority, then most Christian religions are going to have a problem. For one thing, where in scripture does it say that scripture is the sole highest authority for Christians? Where does scripture teach about the trinity? Does scripture contain a list that names which books and letters should make up the Bible? If scripture is the highest authority on earth; what does scripture say is the "pillar and foundation of truth"? (If the OP is correct, I would certainly expect this answer to be Scripture.) Does the Bible contain all of Christ's teachings? If so, where in the Bible does it tell us that? If not, how do we know that? Is everything in the Bible true? And, where are we told to go (according to scripture) if we have a dispute with our neighbor? Who or what does the apostle Paul tell us we are to follow? (2 Thes.2:15 or 1 Cor.11:2), and lastly in Thes.3:16, who does Paul say we should shun?

So I hope this will please both, for as the OP noted; Sacred Scripture is certainly the inspired word of God, written by faithful men it had been entrusted to. But, the opposite is also true; the Scriptures don't contain everything that is considered doctrine by most Christians, such as the belief in the Trinity. That is revealed through Sacred Tradition (not the traditions of man that is spoken against by our Lord), this Sacred Tradition is mentioned several places in the Bible. For whatever it's worth. THIS is the Tradition that Catholics are referring to when they teach us to follow Scripture plus Tradition. (yep, there are many people who call themselves Catholic that don't even know what their own faith teaches, so if you hear otherwise, they're simply wrong. Like I've said on here before; I can sit in a garage, but that doesn't make me a car.). Also, there are scriptures that speak of the passing on of the special gifts that accompany the Bishopric and also writings of the first Christians that make it very clear that they do receive special gifts, given to them by God, through the laying on of hands, in order to guide the church. This is scriptural.

I'm sorry for the length of this; but I was getting very tired of reading over and over the same confusion with the OP. I sincerely hope this helps. Please! Look up the scriptures that I listed. If you still remain unclear on this issue than let me know and I'll try to take another swing at the plate.

God Bless you all! I know you all are truly intent on doing the right thing in following Christ.

 

[Colter]

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?

In the absence of Gods physical presence we have the writings of Holy men. It's tempting to make those writings Gods writings for the simple fact that it's easier and more certain then seeking Gods will in spirit.

AS for the institutionalized church (who wrote the bible books in the first place) then yes, they use the Bible as their authority.

 

[Colter]

The word of God isn't the highest authority; the Word of God (Logos) is the highest authority. The former is entailed in the latter, and is an example of the latter. Scripture gives you general principles for how to live your life, but it doesn't guide you by the hand in day-to-day matters. That's where Christ in incorporeal form (the Logos) comes in. Just as the written word is read with the eyes, the unwritten Word is read with the soul (consciousness).

It's like choosing to trust the writings of a friend from ten years ago when he's trying to get your attention in flesh and blood. This emphasis on the written word can actually culminate in idolatry. Not to mention that putting scripture on the highest authoritative pedestal means the illiterate are worse off than the literate.

 

[lesliedellow]

In the absence of Gods physical presence we have the writings of Holy men. It's tempting to make those writings Gods writings for the simple fact that it's easier and more certain then seeking Gods will in spirit.

That is just another name for calling whatever comes out of your own head, the utterances of the Spirit.

AS for the institutionalized church (who wrote the bible books in the first place) then yes, they use the Bible as their authority.

The biblical texts were composed before there was an institutional Church. The Church as a highly centralised institution could only begin to emerge after Christianity had become a legal religion.

 

[FireDragon76]

No. YOU are the highest authority in what you choose, or choose not to, believe.
...But what you believe about it is completely under your sole authority and nobody else's. Moreover, what you say about that belief is also completely under your authority. The ultimate authority in what Scripture MEANS is you, and noone else.

Because that is true of each and every man, conflict occurs.

That is indeed the reality in the modern world. People who say, "It's not me saying it, the Bible says it..." aren't being personally accountable with their beliefs.

 

[Colter]

That is just another name for calling whatever comes out of your own head, the utterances of the Spirit.




The biblical texts were composed before there was an institutional Church. The Church as a highly centralised institution could only begin to emerge after Christianity had become a legal religion.

Hi Leslie, I enjoy your post here on CF.

You said "That is just another name for calling whatever comes out of your own head, the utterances of the Spirit." That's the kind of argument Atheist make. And clearly men of religion have also denied the spirit in their hearts and coldly relied on the scripture in justification for committing all sorts of atrocities. Following your apparent lack of a prayerful relationship with God, had you been a Jew loyal to scripture authority, you would have also rejected Jesus......according to your, not very well thought out argument.

When I use the term "institutional church" I mean any and all bodies of holy men that comprised religion throughout the development of that which we call Judaic Christian history. I don't want to bust your bubble but you seem mature enough and intelligent enough to handle it, the holy men of religion are just men, like the men of politics. However well intentioned, they have limitations, bias and even corrupt motives. The church councils never were "inerrant" any more than the Obama administration is inerrant. Neither were the authors, redactors and editors of the so called scripture. The creature may crave perfection, but only the creator possess it.

 

[dqhall]

If I get to a fork in an unfamiliar road and need to know whether to turn right or left, I may pray and perhaps get guidance from the Holy Spirit. A GPS might be of some use. The scriptures or Bible will remain mute.

Years ago I attended a lecture where the guest speaker was Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review. He was telling us the Dead Seas Scrolls found at Qumran did not totally match the Hebrew Bible or the Christian translations of the Old Testament. This was due to copying errors that occurred between the first century when Qumran was abandoned and 1947 when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. If scripture contains no errors, I am not sure we have enough scripture.

 

[pescador]

A lot of translations are actually awful. ESV, RSV, KJV are all good. NIV and NRSV belong in the trash. And the "Message" translation is horrendous.

And your basis for saying this is..? The various bibles are written for different purposes, and almost all of them fulfill those goals.

In case you're not aware there is no such thing as a literal bible. If there was it would be unreadable! Translators not only have to translate the ancient documents but they have put them in the words, grammar, meaning, idioms, etc. of the receptor language so that the readers can understand what was said.

IMHO one of the worst translations is the KJV. It is written in 400-year-old English and is based on the textus receptus, a collection of medieval manuscripts that, we now know, contain many inaccuracies. The KJV is written verse by verse, which bears no resemblance to the earliest texts or modern English and leads to out-of-context errors. Have you ever noticed that when people preach from the KJV they almost always translate it "on the fly" for the audience to understand? Why? Because the arcane language is so obtuse that most people don't really understand it. If you love 400-year-old English, fine, but the Bible is meant to be understood and glorify God, Christ, and the Spirit, not make people swoon over how it sounds.

One of the best is the NIV. It is the most widely read bible, whether inside or outside of church. It was put together by a team of renowned scholars and has been revised as more and better knowledge of the source languages and ancient culture has become available.

Be careful how you refer to God's word, regardless of the particular translation. Hopefully if you throw a translation in the trash, someone who needs it will fish it out.