Is scripture the highest authority?

[Hawkiz]

Circular logic is: the RCC is inerrant because the Pope has said it.
SS says scripture is true because it is God's word and God can not lie. SS also says it is the only source of incontrovertible truth. It does not have to prove all other sources of "truths" are untrue. It only has to ask others that believe there are other sources of incontrovertible truths to prove them. If no one can do such, than the result is SS.

The RCC does not claim to be inerrant because the Pope has said that it is. The Church claims to be true for the same exact reasons that Scripture and SS utilize: God said so. Jesus founded the Church. Jesus and the Church are united in a supernatural way that actually makes them one, as a husband and wife are one. Thus we can conclude that the Church is truthful and can not lie; else the bride of Christ is a liar..and that is not to mention that when Saul was persecuting the early Church, what did Jesus say to him? Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME? Christ tells us in this statement that He and His Church are one in the same. A different thread would be required to discuss which church that is, but that does not mean that no such Church exists, and has existed since Jesus founded said Church...so there MUST be A Church that is the bride of Christ. That Church would be guided to all truth, Jesus would never leave that Church, the gates of hell shall not prevail against this Church, and any and all other promises Jesus made about His Church must also hold true.
By the same line of reasoning you used above, the Church that is the bride of Christ does not have to prove all other sources untrue to know that She is Christ's bride.
Additionally, the Romans, whom you seem set against in this thread, do NOT claim to be 'above' Scripture. Rather, the RCC considers Scripture to be part of a 3-legged stool that also includes Tradition and the Magisterium (the teaching and interpretive body of the Church). I know that you want to say that Scripture interprets itself, but this simply isn't true...again, because the Book itself does not even tell us which books should be included within its bindings, not to mention that there can easily be shown to be no less than 6 differing ways to interperet Scripture in almost any passage one would select. If there are multiple ways of understanding one verse, how do any of us know who is holding the Truth? As an example, there is disagreement within your own thread about how to properly discern the verse about the Ethiopian eunuch...if Scripture interperets itself, no such disagreement should ever exist...

Peace in Christ
Hawkiz

 

[fhansen]

You started with the outlandish question/accusation that baptism guarantees understanding. I responded with an equally outlandish statement that everyone in the RCC has the same. Funny how a Catholic never sees sarcasm when a Protestant pokes fun of their claims to truth, inerrancy and understanding.

It should be clear that I disagree.

It is the whole reason for my thread:
Is scripture the highest authority?
If I thought the basis of truth was interpretation of truth, I would have started a thread like:

If you think it is true, is it?
or

If someone says it is true, is it?​

or if I was being more charitable
How is the correct understand of scripture obtained?

That's OK-you can still change your view.

YI believe that there is no point in arguing about doctrines or interpretations of God's word unless you have agreement on where the highest source of incontrovertible truth is. Riffle through the pages in this thread to see where people that have tried to argue doctrine differences as a way to convince another of their position. One who argues for indulgences will stand by their teaching because of tradition. One who argues against, argues it as proof of false doctrine in a church that claims to be inerrant.


Again, not this thread, but based on scripture is my answer. Certainly people disagree. I think it the great evil that so many denominations insist to own the truth. This is not just an RCC thing.

I think it better for everyone to study scripture and learn from it; certainly churches can help with this, but no one should trust church doctrine to be incontrovertibly true. If so, how would disciples of false religions ever come to the truth? Further, the act of studying the truth has merit above just memorizing the truth. If some end up with an incorrect understanding of scripture, so be it. I don't think they will go to hell for it as long as they believe in Jesus as their Savior.

Well, true enough, but I'd prefer to draw the line at the best understanding of the gospel possible. And I believe non-Christians will be saved for that matter. Anyway, everyone has doctrine. Your interpretation of scripture is your doctrine, which may even be influenced more than you think by extra-biblical Christian sources/traditions. The Lutheran church’s interpretation of scripture is their doctrine. The eastern and western ancient church’s interpretation of Scripture together with Tradition is their doctrine. Your belief of the correctness of your particular understanding of Scripture is effectively no different from a church’s claim to infallible interpretation/understanding. Every time you denounce someone else's view as being wrong, you've placed yourself in the position of pope, for all practical purposes. One major difference, however, is that the oldest churches, east and west, trace their beginnings to the very establishment of the church which should give them a great advantage in perspective.

YAgain, not of supreme importance. We will all know the truth when we get to heaven. But, I have a question. How does the RCC answer your question, how does it deal with disagreements in your church? Is only the Pope inerrant? Does everyone just agree with him and does every Pope agree with the next?

Individual Catholics are all over the board. They may pick and choose what they prefer to believe, they may mechanically tow the Vatican line, or they may, preferably, simply come to agree with the church. I had to leave the CC for over 25 years, become a conservative protestant with anti-Catholic sentiments, and, to my own surprise, return to the church decades later. It's a long story, of seeking God, of reading the bible many, many times, studying history, of coming to recognize my own sinfulness rather than expecting perfection from Church leadership, etc.

The oldest churches agree that God established one church. How funny. You agree on one thing but disagree on many others such that you have split at least 3 ways. So you must be right. Somehow a 3 way split is OK, but when Protestants split they brought hundreds of splits, so they are wrong.

The RCC, for its part, recognizes the Eastern Orthodox Church as being fully Church, with the continuous lineage to the beginning and with nothing in it's basic theology to cause an impediment to unity. This is why Pope Benedict called the East the "other lung" of the church. There can only be one Church.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Anyway, everyone has doctrine. Your interpretation of scripture is your doctrine, which may even be influenced more than you think by extra-biblical Christian sources/traditions. The Lutheran church’s interpretation of scripture is their doctrine. The eastern and western ancient church’s interpretation of Scripture together with Tradition is their doctrine. Your belief of the correctness of your particular understanding of Scripture is effectively no different from a church’s claim to infallible interpretation/understanding. Every time you denounce someone else's view as being wrong, you've placed yourself in the position of pope, for all practical purposes.

That is why I say I believe, ...
That is why I say scripture teaches this.
That is why I don't say, this is true, my church is the protector of truth.
I have stated this before, but you keep going back to this as an excuse to how your church is so bold and arrogant with its claims to truth and inerrancy, which has not yet been defended. You say all churches do the same, no they don't.

One major difference, however, is that the oldest churches, east and west, trace their beginnings to the very establishment of the church which should give them a great advantage in perspective.

See, you still defend a religious institution, not with scripture, but traditions. Do you understand that traditions are not guarantee of truth. The Pharisees persist in their traditions also.

Matthew 9:17 Neither do people pour new wine into old wine skins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wine skins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wine skins, and both are preserved.”

Individual Catholics are all over the board. They may pick and choose what they prefer to believe, they may mechanically tow the Vatican line, or they may, preferably, simply come to agree with the church. I had to leave the CC for over 25 years, become a conservative protestant with anti-Catholic sentiments, and, to my own surprise, return to the church decades later. It's a long story, of seeking God, of reading the bible many, many times, studying history, of coming to recognize my own sinfulness rather than expecting perfection from Church leadership, etc.

If you agree that the RCC is not perfect in upholding truth in it, then you should not dismiss those that argue against it.

The RCC, for its part, recognizes the Eastern Orthodox Church as being fully Church, with the continuous lineage to the beginning and with nothing in it's basic theology to cause an impediment to unity. This is why Pope Benedict called the East the "other lung" of the church. There can only be one Church.

One says they are united. Others argue endlessly on theirs being the true successor. You propose a peace that is not there.

 

[fhansen]

That is why I say I believe, ...
That is why I say scripture teaches this.
That is why I don't say, this is true, my church is the protector of truth.
I have stated this before, but you keep going back to this as an excuse to how your church is so bold and arrogant with its claims to truth and inerrancy, which has not yet been defended. You say all churches do the same, no they don't.

Not arrogant, just honest about it, while others practice it while not admitting to it.

See, you still defend a religious institution, not with scripture, but traditions. Do you understand that traditions are not guarantee of truth. The Pharisees persist in their traditions also.

Nothing by itself guarantees that the truth will be conveyed unless and until the truth can be properly discerned. Scripture is simply the written Word; there's no guarantee that reading it will result in adequate understanding of God's nature and will. The gift of infallibility, OTOH, would ensure that very thing. Tradition, aka Sacred Tradition, as distinguished from mere practices, rituals, etc, are simply unwritten teachings, whereas Scripture is the same Tradition or Revelation, that which was taught and handed on, that was also recorded.

If you agree that the RCC is not perfect in upholding truth in it, then you should not dismiss those that argue against it.

I said nothing of the kind-my meaning was only that the actions and sins and hypocrisy of teachers don't, in and of themselves, affect whether or not the truth is being correctly taught- ref Matt 23:3.

One says they are united. Others argue endlessly on theirs being the true successor. You propose a peace that is not there.

Peace doesn't come easily in this world-that's sort of the way of human affairs. And telling us that unity somehow exists in the midst of denominational spin-offs that have occurred over the years as a result of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, often with much enmity involved, certainly doesn't square with common sense nor God's purpose in establishing a church to begin with. Even then, the RCC officially sees a union, albeit an imperfect one, existing between the teachings of the CC and those of most Protestant denominations, and a more perfect one between the EO and the RCC.

 

[Job8]

I think it's a question of whether or not Scripture is a exhaustive authority

If the Word of God cannot be the exhaustive authority, then it is not the Word of God. But in fact Scripture is perfect in every way, and sufficient in every way (2 Tim 3:16,17). But to him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away.

 

[Job8]

The highest authority is still Christ He is the Word not a book

One does not pit Christ against His written words, which He said are spirit and life. Since Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, and is present on earth in Spirit, He has made His written Word the highest authority for Christians. When we read the Bible, it is God speaking to us directly. While men wrote those words down, they are essentially God's words. Hence It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Mt 4:4).

 

[Wolf_Says]

If the Word of God cannot be the exhaustive authority, then it is not the Word of God. But in fact Scripture is perfect in every way, and sufficient in every way (2 Tim 3:16,17). But to him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away.

Please actually give the ENTIRE passage to that, because you are missing the beginning. Also please note that Paul was refering to the OT in this passage, the NT had not been collected and declared scripture yet.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

If the Word of God cannot be the exhaustive authority, then it is not the Word of God.

Obviously the Logos is an exhaustive authority, but Scripture is an icon of the Logos, and only referred to as the Logos relatively.

But in fact Scripture is perfect in every way, and sufficient in every way (2 Tim 3:16,17). But to him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away.

The verse you quoted says nothing about Scripture being exhaustive, just that all Scripture is good and from God (something Gnostics, who rejected the Old Testament, were contesting at the time).

 

[Job8]

The verse you quoted says nothing about Scripture being exhaustive, just that all Scripture is good and from God

Well, let's look at that passage (2 Timonthy 3:15-17) again to confirm that Scripture is indeed exhaustive:

SALVATION THROUGH THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

ALL SCRIPTURE GOD-BREATHED (THEOPNEUSTOS), HENCE INSPIRED AND DIVINE
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE (THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST) FROM SCRIPTURE
and is profitable for doctrine,

CORRECTION OF ALL ERRORS AND FALSE PRACTICES FROM SCRIPTURE
for reproof, for correction,

INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM SCRIPTURE
for instruction in righteousness:

THE PRODUCT OF SCRIPTURE (THE MAN OF GOD) IS COMPLETENESS
17 That the man of God may be perfect, [complete]

EQIPPING FOR GOOD WORKS THROUGH SCRIPTURE
throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Job8]

Please actually give the ENTIRE passage to that, because you are missing the beginning.

Deficiency corrected and passage explained above.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Well, let's look at that passage (2 Timonthy 3:15-17) again to confirm that Scripture is indeed exhaustive:

SALVATION THROUGH THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

ALL SCRIPTURE GOD-BREATHED (THEOPNEUSTOS), HENCE INSPIRED AND DIVINE
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE (THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST) FROM SCRIPTURE
and is profitable for doctrine,

CORRECTION OF ALL ERRORS AND FALSE PRACTICES FROM SCRIPTURE
for reproof, for correction,

INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM SCRIPTURE
for instruction in righteousness:

THE PRODUCT OF SCRIPTURE (THE MAN OF GOD) IS COMPLETENESS
17 That the man of God may be perfect, [complete]

EQIPPING FOR GOOD WORKS THROUGH SCRIPTURE
throughly furnished unto all good works.

Then maybe you ought to complete yourself by reading the rest of Scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:2

2 Thessalonians 2:15

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Well, let's look at that passage (2 Timonthy 3:15-17) again to confirm that Scripture is indeed exhaustive:

SALVATION THROUGH THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Then maybe you ought to complete yourself by reading the rest of Scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:2

2 Thessalonians 2:15

Constantine, if you think Scripture not exhaustive then maybe you can answer the question.

What tradition/doctrine do you have that is necessary for salvation that can't be found in scripture?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Constantine, if you think Scripture not exhaustive then maybe you can answer the question.

What tradition/doctrine do you have that is necessary for salvation that can't be found in scripture?

The Orthodox don't have a list of which doctrines are required for salvation and which aren't. That entire way of thinking comes out of the Catholic conception of supererogation, which was later applied by Protestants to doctrine. Our reverence for doctrine is based on Christ having taught it, and it therefore being our duty to follow. We don't try to play loopholes and minimums with God, that's what Pharisees do.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

The Orthodox don't have a list of which doctrines are required for salvation and which aren't. That entire way of thinking comes out of the Catholic conception of supererogation, which was later applied by Protestants to doctrine. Our reverence for doctrine is based on Christ having taught it, and it therefore being our duty to follow. We don't try to play loopholes and minimums with God, that's what Pharisees do.

Is your Orthodox doctrine for what is necessary for salvation very complex? I thought you had a good handle on your doctrine.

You argue scripture as if you studied it. Surely it can't be that difficult for you to list one important thing for salvation that is not in scripture.

Here's the problem. You repeatedly make claims that scripture is not exhaustive, and say traditions are needed, but then you can't say what traditions are needed. So I guess your church is good for providing "truths" that are not necessary for salvation. And, all the Protestants should be looked down on because they only want the necessary truths.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Is your Orthodox doctrine for what is necessary for salvation very complex? I thought you had a good handle on your doctrine.

You argue scripture as if you studied it. Surely it can't be that difficult for you to list one important thing for salvation that is not in scripture.

Here's the problem. You repeatedly make claims that scripture is not exhaustive, and say traditions are needed, but then you can't say what traditions are needed. So I guess your church is good for providing "truths" that are not necessary for salvation. And, all the Protestants should be looked down on because they only want the necessary truths.

"Doctrine" for us means "what Christ taught". We never tried to sift his teachings according to which are the bare minimum for salvation, since mindset is, to us, also a doctrine, and that is not his mindset.

 

[Berean777]

The highest authority is the 1st century apostolic eye witnesses.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. (1 john 1:1)

@Constantine the Sinner you may as you wish refer to church doctrine resulting from ecclesiastical authority, but theirs is not the highest authority friend.

If we are to truly answer the topic of this thread in all honesty and integrity, we have to make the Holy Sciptures the highest authority over and above church tradition.

You may wish to quote certain historical saints within the Ecclesiastical authority, but their testimoney of the living word is based on hearsay. Unless you want to make church tradition doctrine, along with the Ecclesiastical authority better than the apostles who are the first hand witnesses, who had looked at and their hands had touched-concerning the Word of life.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The highest authority is the 1st century apostolic eye witnesses.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. (1 john 1:1)

@Constantine the Sinner you may as you wish refer to church doctrine resulting from ecclesiastical authority, but theirs is not the highest authority friend.

If we are to truly answer the topic of this thread in all honesty and integrity, we have to make the Holy Sciptures the highest authority over and above church tradition.

You may wish to quote certain historical saints within the Ecclesiastical authority, but their testimoney of the living word is based on hearsay. Unless you want to make church tradition doctrine, along with the Ecclesiastical authority better than the apostles who are the first hand witnesses, who had looked at and their hands had touched-concerning the Word of life.

Well I'd agree with that, but the idea that the Apostles' extant epistles (which were written to respond to specific things in specific sees) are an exhaustive record of their teachings, is not probable, nor is it affirmed by Scripture.

 

[Berean777]

Well I'd agree with that, but the idea that the Apostles' extant epistles (which were written to respond to specific things in specific sees) are an exhaustive record of their teachings, is not probable, nor is it affirmed by Scripture.

That maybe so, however adding to the first hand witness testimony of the 1st century apostles, must not in anyway proclaim it as an extension nor endorsed from an authoritative point of view on par or greater than the 1st century apostles.

Church doctrine must therefore be an addition with less authority and should never proclaim itself as being an extension to 1st century witnesses. Doing so is a fraudulent act.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

That maybe so, however adding to the first hand witness testimony of the 1st century apostles, must not in anyway proclaim it as an extension nor endorsed from an authoritative point of view on par or greater than the 1st century apostles.

Church doctrine must therefore be an addition with less authority and should never proclaim itself as being an extension to 1st century witnesses. Doing so is a fraudulent act.

Well, yeah, in normal context I'd agree, but the there are two issues. First, Christ said the Gates of Hades would not prevail over his Church. If we see it from a purely secular perspective, you make sense, but in light of Christ's promise, we must assume the Church was continuously maintained, and if it taught false teachings as Christ's teachings, then the Gates of Hades would have prevailed.

Secondly, the cohesive whole of Holy Tradition, of which Scripture is a part, is harmonious and logical, not contradictory or disordered, but functional as a conducive, single deposit of faith. If it was willy-nilly assembled over time, that would not be the case.

 

[Berean777]

Well, yeah, in normal context I'd agree, but the there are two issues. First, Christ said the Gates of Hades would not prevail over his Church. If we see it from a purely secular perspective, you make sense, but in light of Christ's promise, we must assume the Church was continuously maintained, and if it taught false teachings as Christ's teachings, then the Gates of Hades would have prevailed.

Secondly, the cohesive whole of Holy Tradition, of which Scripture is a part, is harmonious and logical, not contradictory or disordered, but functional as a conducive, single deposit of faith. If it was willy-nilly assembled over time, that would not be the case.

On point 1 one must define church in harmony with context of situation and context of culture of the assembly of Christ, that is the Church/
Ekklisía of the 1st century. One must define the term the gates of hell will not prevail in context to the recipient's of the message, who are the Ekklesia who delivered the original unaltered faith.

Question is, did the 1st century apostles manage to deliver the complete faith along with the complete message, whilst under overwhelming odds against them?

The answer is yes.

So if Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against my church, to whom was he implying to, within the context of situation and context of Ekklesia culture?

I hope that you would say the 1st century church before the events of 70AD.

The message of the gates of hell will not prevail against my Ekklesia, is contextually by the very words of Jesus within the same conversation with his disciples.....

28“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Jesus ascended into heaven, that is his kingdom and promised that when this event happened at his ascension in the 1st century, those very disciples who were the recipient's of the saying of the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Ekklesia would not taste death.

Here is the unquestionable context of his 1st century Ekklesia ministering successfully in the last half of Daniel's 70th week without tasting death, meaning they succeed in getting the message out (the gospel) and establishing the faith.