Is scripture the highest authority?

[Thursday]

I'm not adding to anything and I'm quoting scripture in context. I don't select single, unrelated verses from different biblical "books", out-of-context, as you do, to try to prove a predetermined doctrinal point. That is deception! There are plenty of warnings in the Bible of false teachers who try to distort God's word.

Feel free to point out how the verses I posted are misleading or out of context with this subject.

 

[Thursday]

Either the Church is inerrant or it isn't. If the inerrancy was passed down by apostolic succession, there would not be splits.

Of course there will be people who abandon the Church. Jesus said that he would divide family members from each other, let alone random followers of the Church.

We read in scripture that many left the Church because they couldn't handle the teaching of the Eucharist:

John 6
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”.......
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Or for unknown reasons:

1 John 2
19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

 

[amariselle]

No, he didn't. The sale of indulgences was NEVER Catholic doctrine. You need to do more research.

Really? So who was responsible for instituting the sale of indulgences if it wasn't the Catholic Church?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Really? So who was responsible for instituting the sale of indulgences if it wasn't the Catholic Church?

In the last 75 years, they have been working furiously to re-write history.

As much as half, perhaps, of the information that was available on the internet 10 to 20 years ago
is now gone, concerning that which was true and evidence they didn't want available.
(not just religious by the way; government, medical, and military also)

They have tried hard to eliminate all records of Keith Green's "the catholic chronicles" , for instance.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

No, he didn't. The sale of indulgences was NEVER Catholic doctrine. You need to do more research.

Indulgences were done by the Church, but you say it wasn't doctrine. OK. People were taught and pushed into giving money in untruthful ways. What good is doctrine if the Church teaches falsities? What is the difference between the doctrine a church holds and what it teaches? How can a church be inerrant in doctrine but teach what is false and promote something for profit?

You quibble over a difference between doctrine and what a church teaches and does; only because you can't right all things done in your church. This wouldn't be a problem for most churches, but you claim to be inerrant so you need to concoct a story to defend your position.
Keep trying.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Isn't it in Revelation ?
(not by Yhwh though, ever)

That was a different thread in GT. I used to not take that idea seriously but given that the current Pope promotes false teachings that border on blasphemy, I don't know.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That was a different thread in GT. I used to not take that idea seriously but given that the current Pope promotes false teachings that border on blasphemy, I don't know.

That border was crossed a long, long time ago. (it is heavily censored though)

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Of course there will be people who abandon the Church. Jesus said that he would divide family members from each other, let alone random followers of the Church.

There you go, start flinging some of that mud reserved for the evil Protestants and send it to the evil Greeks and Easterns for also abandoning the true Church. Oh, but they say the same thing to you. How do I know which one to follow?

I know, I will follow you because you say you are the true church.

Like nobody else says that. Can you prove that yours is better?

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The OP is about whether the Word of God is the ultimate authority, and whether we should regard it as our rule an law book.
Of course many Catholics look to the Church for guidance and interpretation, and the bible as a supplement to their spiritual path and life - not something that needs us to become lifelong students of.

As you noted, my thread is about the highest authority/source of truth we have on earth.

Your next statement is a different question, as I have pointed out to others. What means do the elect have of learning the truth and putting them into practice. Certainly churches are useful even with their traditions to further this cause. Also I would say people do not have to study the Bible individually to obtain salvation. They can trust that their teachers are telling the truth, but how does one know for sure if their teachers are telling the truth? Scripture answers this quite clearly. Much more clearly than the anointed Church is always right.

Your second comment is really just a diversion from addressing the OP question and it matters not to it.

My last question, why would the Catholic Church not encourage the study of God's recorded word? I know it was that way in the past when the education levels were lower, but today, I can't see a reason for that attitude.

 

[faroukfarouk]

The authority of the scriptures is testified by everyone who has heard the gospel of salvation so as to be saved. We can all say along with Jesus to the Father, "Your Word is Truth" (Jn.17:17). John 6:29 This is the work of God that you believe in Him whom He has sent.

Good post; how can we put the word of man above the Word of God?

 

[civilwarbuff]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
Indulgence
In the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, an indulgence is "a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins"[1] which may reduce either or both of the penancerequired after a sin has been forgiven, or after death, the temporal punishment, (not "time," as Purgatory like Heaven and Hell is said to exist "outside of time,") in the state or process of purification called Purgatory.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes an indulgence as "a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints".[2]

The recipient of an indulgence must perform an action to receive it. This is most often the saying (once, or many times) of a specified prayer, but may also include the visiting of a particular place, or the performance of specific good works.

Sacred inscription on theArchbasilica of St. John Lateran in Rome:Indulgentia plenaria perpetua quotidiana toties quoties pro vivis et defunctis (English trans: "Perpetual everyday plenary indulgence on every occasion for the living and the dead")

Indulgences were introduced to allow for the remission of the severe penances of the early Church and granted at the intercession of Christians awaiting martyrdom or at least imprisoned for the faith.[3] They draw on the Treasury of Merit accumulated by Christ's superabundantly meritorious sacrifice on the cross and the virtues and penances of the saints.[4] They are granted for specific good works and prayers[4] in proportion to the devotion with which those good works are performed or prayers recited.[5]

By the late Middle Ages, the abuse of indulgences, mainly through commercialization, had become a serious problem which the Church recognized but was unable to restrain effectively. Indulgences were from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation a target of attacks byMartin Luther and all other Protestant theologians. Eventually the Catholic Counter-Reformationcurbed the excesses, but indulgences continue to play a role in modern Catholic religious life. Reforms in the 20th century largely abolished the quantification of indulgences, which had been expressed in terms of days or years. These days or years were meant to represent the equivalent of time spent in penance, although it was widely taken to mean time spent in Purgatory. The reforms also greatly reduced the number of indulgences granted for visiting particular churches and other locations.

I am curious as to where even the IDEA of indulgences came from.....cuz it certainly isn't scriptural.

 

[amariselle]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
Indulgence
In the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, an indulgence is "a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins"[1] which may reduce either or both of the penancerequired after a sin has been forgiven, or after death, the temporal punishment, (not "time," as Purgatory like Heaven and Hell is said to exist "outside of time,") in the state or process of purification called Purgatory.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes an indulgence as "a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints".[2]

The recipient of an indulgence must perform an action to receive it. This is most often the saying (once, or many times) of a specified prayer, but may also include the visiting of a particular place, or the performance of specific good works.

Sacred inscription on theArchbasilica of St. John Lateran in Rome:Indulgentia plenaria perpetua quotidiana toties quoties pro vivis et defunctis (English trans: "Perpetual everyday plenary indulgence on every occasion for the living and the dead")

Indulgences were introduced to allow for the remission of the severe penances of the early Church and granted at the intercession of Christians awaiting martyrdom or at least imprisoned for the faith.[3] They draw on the Treasury of Merit accumulated by Christ's superabundantly meritorious sacrifice on the cross and the virtues and penances of the saints.[4] They are granted for specific good works and prayers[4] in proportion to the devotion with which those good works are performed or prayers recited.[5]

By the late Middle Ages, the abuse of indulgences, mainly through commercialization, had become a serious problem which the Church recognized but was unable to restrain effectively. Indulgences were from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation a target of attacks byMartin Luther and all other Protestant theologians. Eventually the Catholic Counter-Reformationcurbed the excesses, but indulgences continue to play a role in modern Catholic religious life. Reforms in the 20th century largely abolished the quantification of indulgences, which had been expressed in terms of days or years. These days or years were meant to represent the equivalent of time spent in penance, although it was widely taken to mean time spent in Purgatory. The reforms also greatly reduced the number of indulgences granted for visiting particular churches and other locations.

I am curious as to where even the IDEA of indulgences came from.....cuz it certainly isn't scriptural.

It's not only unScriptural, it is in direct contradiction to Scripture. Either the work of Christ on the cross was and is sufficient and complete for us and our salvation, (as Scripture makes absolutely clear) or it wasn't, (as the Catholic tradition/teaching/doctrine of indulgences, purgatory and penance teaches).

Just several clear examples of Scripture being of lesser authority than manmade tradition and teaching.

Anyone who holds Scripture to be of higher authority than Church tradition and teachings, will see the contradiction.

The Bible is the inspired word of God, and it is absolutely of higher authority than ANY teachings and traditions of man. We are to go to Scripture and seek the Lord in ALL things, praying for guidance and discernment from the Holy Spirit. If anything contradicts the word of God, it is not of God.

Christ's work on the cross and the free gift of grace, mercy and forgiveness He offers us, is NOT something we can earn or need to add to in order to obtain salvation.

"Once you were dead because of your disobedience and your many sins. You used to live in sin, just like the rest of the world, obeying the devil—the commander of the powers in the unseen world. He is the spirit at work in the hearts of those who refuse to obey God. All of us used to live that way, following the passionate desires and inclinations of our sinful nature. By our very nature we were subject to God’s anger, just like everyone else."

"But God is so rich in mercy, and he loved us so much, that even though we were dead because of our sins, he gave us life when he raised Christ from the dead. (It is only by God’s grace that you have been saved!) For he raised us from the dead along with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ Jesus. So God can point to us in all future ages as examples of the incredible wealth of his grace and kindness toward us, as shown in all he has done for us who are united with Christ Jesus.

"God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago." (Ephesians 2:1-10)

Our salvation is GOD's gift, given to us through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, His Son and our Saviour. We have not and cannot earn our salvation.

 

[Propianotuner]

and the virtues and penances of the saints.

This is the part of the doctrine which most contradicts biblical truth. Saints do not add to some treasury of merit, the merit necessary to forgive sin is the Lord's alone. When Christians forgive sin it is them acting out a gift from God.

When we see the Lord we will not come before Him with a robe of righteousness enveloped in our deeds, the saints' deeds, and the Lord Jesus' deeds, rather we will be beneficiaries of the Atonement alone, casting our crowns before the mercy seat and praising the One proper object of worship.

 

[pescador]

You are adding to scripture.

Did you miss this:

John 15:10
If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love.

Romans 11
22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

2 Peter 2:20
If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

Here are the sections from which you have chosen single verses in three separate works:

1) “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.This is my command: Love each other."

I don't see how you miss the emphasis in this section on love! Just the first sentence is enough to explain the main subject. Jesus is telling his disciples that he and they are one, that he loves them, and considers them friends, not servants. The fact that you pull one single "if" sentence out of this shows your obvious bias against the message.

2) Here is the section from Paul's letter to the Romans containing your one verse...

"I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!"

Clearly this section is telling the Gentiles that they should be grateful that they have been grafted into God's family, which stems from the root: Israel If they become ungrateful and arrogant about Israel, and live in unbelief as Israel did, they will be cut off. It is amazing that out of this poignant section about Israel being temporarily cut off from God you find a condemnation of all believers. That is really tragic!

3) The third section is taken from a discourse about false prophets, and those who have followed them, not about true Christians.

"These people [false prophets] are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them". If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”

It is amazing that you can apply these warnings to people who have abandoned Christ to all Christians. Notice that Peter is talking about "them" not "us".

Be very cautious, my friend, about being self-righteous and threatening those who are perhaps weak in faith. Build them up, don't threaten to tear them down.

It is obvious that you have taken single verses out of the context in which they were written, and with a pre-planned motive, warned the body of Christ about God's sternness toward them if they misbehave. Read Jesus' parable about the prodigal son if you want to understand God's forgiveness and love toward those who have unintentionally made mistakes. God is love!

 

[Thursday]

Indulgences were done by the Church, but you say it wasn't doctrine. OK. .

Indulgences have always been part of Christianity. The selling of indulgences has never been Catholic doctrine, however.

 

[Thursday]

There you go, start flinging some of that mud reserved for the evil Protestants and send it to the evil Greeks and Easterns for also abandoning the true Church. Oh, but they say the same thing to you. How do I know which one to follow?

I know, I will follow you because you say you are the true church.

Like nobody else says that. Can you prove that yours is better?

Which Church is 2000 years old? Which Church holds to the teachings and beliefs of the earliest Christians?

 

[Thursday]

My last question, why would the Catholic Church not encourage the study of God's recorded word? I know it was that way in the past when the education levels were lower, but today, I can't see a reason for that attitude.

You keep posting one false accusation after another.

To quote St. Jerome, "ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ."

Of course Catholics are encouraged to study scripture. After all, the bible is a Catholic book!

 

[Thursday]

I don't see how you miss the emphasis in this section on love! Just the first sentence is enough to explain the main subject. Jesus is telling his disciples that he and they are one, that he loves them, and considers them friends, not servants. The fact that you pull one single "if" sentence out of this shows your obvious bias against the message.

Can you love someone if you disobey them repeatedly without repentance?

Jesus is clear that if we are to remain in his LOVE, we must obey his commandments.

Why would you attempt to deny this?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Indulgences have always been part of Christianity.

And where in scripture is such activity supported? And when did it start because I doubt the "always" part of your statement.

 

[civilwarbuff]

After all, the bible is a Catholic book!

The Orthodox have no claim to it?