Scriptural Authority - is it backed by the Scriptures ?

[StormyOne]

I am sorry , StormyOne , but as per post 15 , I will ask that you refer to post 15 .

I consider that any input of mine other than this will confuse those claiming those doctrines to be true and encourage them to respond to any new post of mine rather than sticking to the use of the Scriptures and only the Scriptures to prove their doctrines . If you wish , I can respond to your post via email or pm . I appologize again .

please do.... a PM will be fine....

 

[Johnnz]

Good question. It generally arises from the clergy, either by a denominational constitution, or by some who teach a hierarchy of God-pastor-man-woman.

The only authority any Christian has is that of evidence (or fruit) of godliness. When the pharisees asked him about his authority Jesus appealed to three sources - Scripture, the Father and his works. There is no authority in the Christian community deriving merely from a position or title.

Let me illustrate. Many people come to me for advice, counsel and prayer. My 'authority' can ever and only be the validity of what I say etc. If they are genuinely helped in some way I have imparted something of Christ's life to them. Can you see what I am saying. Under such a basis for authority a person is totally free to accept or reject anything I say without pressure from me. After all, God does this to each of us through our free will, and He is the unlimate authority!

John
NZ

 

[MrJim]

Where do you see 1Tim3:15 fitting in through this?

The question has to do with scriptural authority-looking at scripture as being truth.

This passage says that "...you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth."

So then there is authority in the scripture because it's God's word and there is authority in the church. Church = pillar & ground of truth. Funny, wouldn't it had made more sense in saying that the scripture was the pillar & ground of truth?

Somewhere in there may be the answer?

 

[discernomatic]

Ok . Here it is . There are several doctrines concerning the Scriptures . Are they backed by the Scriptures or are they self-contradictory ?

So , using the same criteria as those who claim Sola Scriptura and Scriptural Authority , what passages back up these doctrines . And , since it is Scriptures Only and the Scriptures are to be selfinterpreting , I expect those to be honored by those with support .


To kick it off , 2 Timothy 3:16 says nothing about authority nor about the Scriptures alone on anything .

Seriously , I would really like to know if anyone has support for these doctrines .

Missed the debate/discussion up to now. I just would like to state what I consider to be a fact and ask a question. At the time 2 Timothy 3:16 was written, the New Testament was not known as such. Paul can only be referring to the OT when speaking of Scripture, only the Old Testament was in existence.

And some have even told me that there was even some disagreement at that time as to what the OT was, that even the Jews were divided in this. I do not doubt that Jesus is the living Word of God, but what was Jesus referring to when he spoke of Scripture say in John 10:35? Was he referring to the Scripture rolls at the synagogue in Nazareth which he read from to show his identity in Luke 4:14-30 (from Isaiah)? And if so, which "books" were there at the time other than Isaiah? He himself admits to teaching in the synagogues and temple, but what was his definition of Scripture? Was the torah as we now know it in existence then? If not, what was at least generally accepted as Scripture?

 

[MrJim]

Where do you see 1Tim3:15 fitting in through this?

The question has to do with scriptural authority-looking at scripture as being truth.

This passage says that "...you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth."

So then there is authority in the scripture because it's God's word and there is authority in the church. Church = pillar & ground of truth. Funny, wouldn't it had made more sense in saying that the scripture was the pillar & ground of truth?

Somewhere in there may be the answer?

Bump on this question

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Tricky: "House", Oikos:



1) a house

a) an inhabited house, home

b) any building whatever

1) of a palace

2) the house of God, the tabernacle

c) any dwelling place

1) of the human body as the abode of demons that possess it

2) of tents, and huts, and later, of the nests, stalls, lairs, of animals

3) the place where one has fixed his residence, one's settled abode, domicile

2) the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household a) the family of God, of the Christian Church, of the church of the Old and New Testaments

I personally get the impression of people, rather than a building form this verse... so would translate house more metaphoriaclly, rather than as a building. Simply because of the use of the word Living directly preceeding itin reference to God. This phrase would be pointless if Tim thought that this idea of people over building was inherent in his use of a word that could mean building or people! Then he uses Greek conter-position by switching back to architectural metaphors that clearly are not meant to be taken as literal physical things - pillars - but again as metaphors.

This verse does not encourage the delusion that buildings are sacred - it uses peoples assumoption about such a thing to show them otherwise - that people are sacred.

 

[MrJim]

Tricky: "House", Oikos:



1) a house

a) an inhabited house, home

b) any building whatever

1) of a palace

2) the house of God, the tabernacle

c) any dwelling place

1) of the human body as the abode of demons that possess it

2) of tents, and huts, and later, of the nests, stalls, lairs, of animals

3) the place where one has fixed his residence, one's settled abode, domicile

2) the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household a) the family of God, of the Christian Church, of the church of the Old and New Testaments

I personally get the impression of people, rather than a building form this verse... so would translate house more metaphoriaclly, rather than as a building. Simply because of the use of the word Living directly preceeding itin reference to God. This phrase would be pointless if Tim thought that this idea of people over building was inherent in his use of a word that could mean building or people! Then he uses Greek conter-position by switching back to architectural metaphors that clearly are not meant to be taken as literal physical things - pillars - but again as metaphors.

This verse does not encourage the delusion that buildings are sacred - it uses peoples assumoption about such a thing to show them otherwise - that people are sacred.

I don't see building in this verse but it does seem to point to something bigger than the individual. Perhaps "household of God" would be a better-but I was going after the "...church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth."

Pillar and ground of truth seems to have some solid references, more so than the individual. I can get a simple explanation from the "organized" church, just wondering what the house church/unchurched view of this would be.

 

[MrJim]

Where do you see 1Tim3:15 fitting in through this?

The question has to do with scriptural authority-looking at scripture as being truth.

This passage says that "...you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth."

So then there is authority in the scripture because it's God's word and there is authority in the church. Church = pillar & ground of truth. Funny, wouldn't it had made more sense in saying that the scripture was the pillar & ground of truth?

Somewhere in there may be the answer?

Bumping again 'cause I'd like to see if there is another opinion about this passage than what I get from "organized" denoms.

 

[Johnnz]

The authority of Scriptures as the source of doctrine was an important basis of reformed theology, which undergirds most protestant thinking.



But we have erred somewhat. We tend to emphasis correct doctrine, which usually means what I believe, and so we have over 33K different denominations! When we look at the NT we see something different. Whereas doctrine was important, the greater emphasis was always on our life in Christ, an experiential relationship with Him that produced godliness of character. This can override difference sin doctrine.



I have been blessed with lifelong multi-denominational friendships and involvements. I have experienced the life of Christ amongst us as we have worked, prayed, worshipped and fellowshipped together, in spite of holding to different doctrines. Our Christian life is the story of a relationship with Jesus, not mere assent to doctrines. When I live out our family unity in Christ doctrines don't divide or cause contention.



We can become doctrinal biblicists instead of disciples of Christ all to easily.



John

NZ

 

[TrueWords]

Hello,

here are some scriptures that teach the authority of the scriptures,

"These things speak and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. let no man despise thee.' (Titus 2:15)

Noitice here that the "THINGS " that he was to speak were the "THINGS" that Paul wrote to him, (under the leading of the Spirit). So these things have "authority". The word therefore that paul wrote has authority and so do all the scriptures. For they are given by God.

Here is another clear verse,

"...If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." (1 Cor 14:37,38)

Here we see again that the "THINGS" that Paul wrote were the "COMMANDEMENTS OF GOD' (Unless he specifically said he spoke not by commandement, which he only did on a few occassions).

So Gods commands have authority.

This truth can help us greatly. For example if a person says that Pauls traditions that he wrote about and wanted others to keep were not needed for us today, they error for paul wrote under the leading of God. It was God speaking through him that we hear.

Or if we give a young boy the holy Scriptures and he has faith, he has more authority if he quotes them rightly than a Pope who does not quote them as his authority.

 

[TrueWords]

Hello here is something to think about,Notice how the apostles considered things they wrote and spoke as COMMANDEMENTS of the Lord.

"..the things that I write unto you are the commandements of the Lord" ( 1 Cor 14:37)

'Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our lord jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye have received of us." ( 2 Thessalonians 3:6)

"...this we command you...' ( 2 Thessalonians 3:10)

"...but they are commanded to be under obedience...' (1 Cor 14;34)

"And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you" (1Thessalonians 4:11)

"That ye may be mindful of the qords which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandement of us the apsotles of the Lord and saviour." ( 2 Peter 3:2)

"For ye know what commandement we gave you by the Lord Jesus.' ( 1 Thessalonians 4:2)

"...after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandements unto the apostles whom he had chosen.' ( Acts 1:2)

"..sisters son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandements..." ( Colossians 4:10)

and of Peter it is said,

"And he commanded them..." (Acts 10:48)

Some people just seen to make things up to fit their own views, but I seek to follow the Holy Spirit who wrote the Holy Scriptures.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Ok . Here it is . There are several doctrines concerning the Scriptures . Are they backed by the Scriptures or are they self-contradictory ?

So , using the same criteria as those who claim Sola Scriptura and Scriptural Authority , what passages back up these doctrines . And , since it is Scriptures Only and the Scriptures are to be selfinterpreting , I expect those to be honored by those with support .


To kick it off , 2 Timothy 3:16 says nothing about authority nor about the Scriptures alone on anything .

Seriously , I would really like to know if anyone has support for these doctrines .

If you really want an answer to this question, why don't you go ask the folks who believe in it whole-heartedly? There is a section in the Semper Reformanda-Reformed room called 'Ask A Calvinist'. They'll be glad to answer your question.

Just one question for you...if sola Scriptura is false, then what makes Paul's words more valid than, say, Muhammed's? Or Luther's words more valid that the Pope's? Or Dwight Moody's words more valid than Joseph Smith's?

 

[New_Wineskin]

If you really want an answer to this question, why don't you go ask the folks who believe in it whole-heartedly? There is a section in the Semper Reformanda-Reformed room called 'Ask A Calvinist'. They'll be glad to answer your question.

Just one question for you...if sola Scriptura is false, then what makes Paul's words more valid than, say, Muhammed's? Or Luther's words more valid that the Pope's? Or Dwight Moody's words more valid than Joseph Smith's?

This post is to again refer back to post 15 . Thank you .

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Check the meaning of the greek words translated here as "command" and "commandment".

 

[GrinningDwarf]

This post is to again refer back to post 15 . Thank you .

So....if you really want an answer to your question, again I'd ask you to go ask it in the Ask a Calvinist section of the Semper Reformanda-Reformed room. They'll even let you respond over there!

Thank you!