The "Final Authority" = the Bible

[ETide]

if you burned every bible on the planet the Church would remain.

Who suggested that it wouldn't..? And who would suggest such nonsense as burning every bible on the planet..?

So much for the "grass that does not fade away". This is the problem with the heterodox, you have no faith without a book telling you what it is that you have faith in for if the bible was taken away you would be lost.

Evidently you're qualified to speak of what our faith consists of.. And I will gladly confess that I grow in the grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ through the scriptures which speak to His eternal glory.. not by what some man has to say.. or who allows himself to be called His All Holiness..

The testimony of many folks such as yourself speak clearly to the fact that you'd rather bask in your false understanding of the church of God, and claim it as your own.. rather than in the word of God which contains the powerful and living gospel that begat all believers into His church in the first place..

 

[orthodoxy]

The "Final Authority" = the Bible


Where did Jesus Christ "ordain and send" the bible into all the world to preach the gospel?

Where did Jesus Christ proclaim the scripture as the "final authroity" in a Christians life?

How can a book that is not complete in the stories and teachings of Jesus Christ be the "final authority" in anything?

pondering

kyril

there will be no more posts allowed under this thread regarding the RCC. My intention was not to debate the RCC and its authority. My question is why the heterodox think the RCC is even the Church to protest. Thus I withdrawl this question because apparently it is confusing the masses of heterodox readers into thinking this is a bash the roman catholics thread.

Forgiven me for the misunderstanding.....

Thanks

kyril

 

[ETide]

It would help if you understood what the church of God actually is, orthodox.. but that ain't happenin either.. lol

 

[orthodoxy]

Tough question and at the moment I'm not sure how to answer because no one but the Holy Spirit is the infallible interpreter of Scripture. It certainly isn't Rome. All we can do is pray and ask God's guidance, take it to our respective leaders of the body we attend and you're still going to get disagreement. Face it, we as human beings aren't ever going to agree on everything the Scriptures teach. And even if we did, that wouldn't prove we were all right about it. We could all be wrong. But I think it's dangerous to give one human or group of humans infallible authority in our eyes to interpret Scripture because if they're wrong, we're all wrong. The Bible is for all of us to read and study. And, no, I don't accept the Catholic belief that their leaders are automatically kept from being wrong. Insufficient answer but it's the best I can do right now.

Jesus never said " you guys pray about it". No, He stated "tell it to the Church". Act 2 they "had all things in common" this takes acts of humility to "obey and submit" to those over you. I am certian many of the pahrisitical leaders that insisted circumcision in Acts 15 ceased to "walk with them". In John 6 many that "could not hear the things Jesus stated "cease to walk with them". Just because one protests and rejects the Church unified decisisons does not make the Church invalid, fact is they make themselves "invalid" by their protest. In Acts disputes were agreed on through council Acts 1 and Acts 15 and they were final.

You plainly are ignoring the instruction and commands of Jesus Christ stated in Matthew 18.

kyril

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

The fabrications and false History perpetuated by you on these threads have been Exposed and you standing with quicksand under the feet. (Example below) Every word that comes forth from the heart will be judged.

Lets see, in reality, wikipedia confirms what I said about the Pseudo-Isodorian Decretals being a fraudlent forgery, as is also true for the known forgeries of "Donation of Constantine" and the "Liber Pontificalis", of which are but a few fraudulent forgeries relied upon by Thomas Aquinas, and following Roman Catholic theologians.

Therefore, you have not exposed anything, but actually were supporting my case with your citation from Wikipedia.




Wikipedia states emphatically that the Pseudo-Isodorian Decretals were forgeries, as well as other documents that Rome used as reason and validation for the expansion of the papacy.

In reality, it's the false and fraudulent claims of Rome that have been EXPOSED!



Originally Posted by Augustine_Was_Calvinist
The severe problem with so much of what Roman Catholics call "tradition", especially as it pertains to the papacy and asserted primacy of the Roman bishop, are nothing more than fabrications that come from forgeries such as the Pseudo-Isodorian Decretals, the "liber pontificalis", "The Donation of Constantine", and other such forged documents, which were used by Gratian in his "Decretum", and duped Thomas Aquinas into basing his "Against the Errors of the Greeks", which contained the lies of forgery from the Pseudo-Isodorian Decretals", falsely and fraudulently ascribing quotes to Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Abbot that made it appear they were espousing Roman primacy, when in reality, the quotes were forged, and contrived by Roman officials to falsely present the "ancient" case for Roman primacy.

However, Wikipedia only tells one part of the story.

I quote one of your own esteemed Roman Catholic historians on this topic;


Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger. He was the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic. He makes these important comments:

In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.​

That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.​

The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers...and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokeful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional [SIZE=-1](Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116).​

​

{Quote] Trento

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pseudo-Isidore is the pseudonym given to the scholar or group of scholars responsible for the most extensive and influential set of forgeries found in medieval Canon law. The works, produced during the mid-ninth century in north-eastern France, have been universally recognized as a set of forgeries by both Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars for well over a century.
With the Donation of Constantine and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the corpus of the "Pseudo-Isidore" is one of the three most persuasive forgeries in the history of the West.


Pseudo-Isidore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/quote]

Add "Liber Pontificalis" to that number. Your so called "exposing", in fact supported exactly what I said.

 

[orthodoxy]

The facts of history demonstrate with full assurance that the Councils of Nicea, Chalcedon and Constantinople dispelled any notion of any "supreme pontiff".

Even the autocratic title, "His Holiness", etc, and "pontificus maximus", or "Vicar of Christ", or "supreme pontiff", is directly contrary to Christian Charity and the teaching of Christ that the greatest would be the servant of all, and not a lord over all as is fraudulent claimed by the church of Rome.

The facts of history demonstrate with full assurance that the Councils of Nicea, Chalcedon and Constantinople dispelled any notion of any "supreme pontiff".


I agree. The 5 main patriarch were and are considered "equal" with the bishop in Rome considered "chief".

Even the autocratic title, "His Holiness", etc, and "pontificus maximus", or "Vicar of Christ", or "supreme pontiff", is directly contrary to Christian Charity and the teaching of Christ that the greatest would be the servant of all, and not a lord over all as is fraudulent claimed by the church of Rome.

I agree. The head of the Church is servant of all as set forth in the "washing of the feet".

of course we now stray off topic but it does show Jesus washed the feet of men not a book

as if a book had feet and a mouth

the unworthy

kyril

 

[orthodoxy]

The very fact that the Apostles saw fit to write the New Testament that the very earliest of the Church Fathers, including Polycarp, Ignatius, Pappias, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, etc called; "Sacred Scriptures" and recognized as being "Inspired of God"(thus Jesus since Jesus Is God) is ample evidence of that ordaination.

Although not all the aposltes wrote scripture they all did "appoint and ordain" men to "feed the sheep" making their ordainations authoritative.

You are correct in saying that the "Sacred Scripture" are a "fruit that will remain" as stated by Jesus Christ when He ordained the men He sent as His Father sent Him.

My Point?

The Holy Scripture which we all read are a "fruit" of the Church (John 15:16) proving the Holy Scripture are "Spirit filled" because those men that penned the Holy Scripture were "Spirit filled".

Apparently those that insist a book is the "final authority" in a Christians life are the ones that reject the men that gave us this "fruit that remains".

kyril

 

[Lynn73]

Jesus never said " you guys pray about it". No, He stated "tell it to the Church". Act 2 they "had all things in common" this takes acts of humility to "obey and submit" to those over you. I am certian many of the pahrisitical leaders that insisted circumcision in Acts 15 ceased to "walk with them". In John 6 many that "could not hear the things Jesus stated "cease to walk with them". Just because one protests and rejects the Church unified decisisons does not make the Church invalid, fact is they make themselves "invalid" by their protest. In Acts disputes were agreed on through council Acts 1 and Acts 15 and they were final.

You plainly are ignoring the instruction and commands of Jesus Christ stated in Matthew 18.

kyril

No group of human beings has a higher authority over the word of God. The reason we're to "tell it to the church" is that Christ's real church is going to make judgments according to the Scriptures. You capitalize the church as if it were deity and, imho, put your church in the place of God. No matter how you spin it, if a church doesn't look to the Scriptures as their authority, you can be sure it isn't Christ's church because Christ's church will uphold the truth and be grounded in it but it is NOT the truth itself. And that truth is in Christ and the word of God. That's where the true authority is, even though you keep trying to place it in the hands of YOUR church, just as those in the RCC keep trying ot place it in the hands of theirs.

 

[ETide]

No group of human beings has a higher authority over the word of God. The reason we're to "tell it to the church" is that Christ's real church is going to make judgments according to the Scriptures. You capitalize the church as if it were deity and, imho, put your church in the place of God. No matter how you spin it, if a church doesn't look to the Scriptures as their authority, you can be sure it isn't Christ's church because Christ's church will uphold the truth and be grounded in it but it is NOT the truth itself. And that truth is in Christ and the word of God. That's where the true authority is, even though you keep trying to place it in the hands of YOUR church, just as those in the RCC keep trying ot place it in the hands of theirs.

AMEN, end of story..

This disrespect for the Word of God is a testimony in itself.. it speaks volumes as to what their authority is.. and is not..

 

[Lynn73]

Exactly . . . and sadly.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Where did Jesus Christ "ordain and send" the bible into all the world to preach the gospel?

AGAIN... He didn't. He sent people. But He didn't make any one teacher the "sole arbiter" for faith and practice, He didn't make any one teacher the "sole interpreter" of His Holy Word, He didn't declare any one teacher to be "infallible." He sent us to TEACH and Baptize, not to invent stuff or lord it over one another or proclaim self infallible or the sole anything.

Protestants reject this institutionalization, this politicization of Christ and Christianity, the extreme emphasis on self. As Protestants often say, "It's not Jesus and ME, it's Jesus and WE."

Where did Jesus Christ proclaim the scripture as the "final authroity" in a Christians life?

To what authority did Jesus appeal over 50 times? Clue: It wasn't to the Roman Catholic or the Greek Orthodox denomination, it wasn't to the Infallible Pope, it wasn't to the 'vicar of Christ" it wasn't to the Bishop of Rome. Nope, He never even mentioned these things, none of them, not even once.

And to what did PETER direct us? Over and over to Scripture, yes, but how often did PETER mention the Infallible Pope? The vicar of Christ, those "keys," any denominational institution? Ah, we all know.

How can a book that is not complete in the stories and teachings of Jesus Christ be the "final authority" in anything?

1. The Book of John says it doesn't contain all the things Jesus DID (he put on his sandles on February 20, 20 AD by our calendar - John didn't record that) but there is NOTHING in Scripture that suggests that God forgot to include some DOGMAS in His Holy Word to us and so gave these DOGMAS instead to the Bishop of Rome or to any other institution.


2. We all agree that the content of these 27 books is the "Word of God, and no greater assurance of credibility can be given....the books of the Bible are inspired by God; what does this mean? It means that God is the Author. God inspired these penmen to write as He wished and guided them to do so without error." But, Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons and several others claim to have other stuff, too. I think the world is waiting for the substaniation that these extra doctrines are infallible, authoritative, apostolic, DIVINELY-inspired as we all believe the 27 NT books are. Of course, anyone can claim anything they want - and surprisingly sometimes do, but does that insure that it's true?

there will be no more posts allowed under this thread regarding the RCC. My intention was not to debate the RCC and its authority. My question is why the heterodox think the RCC is even the Church to protest. Thus I withdrawl this question because apparently it is confusing the masses of heterodox readers into thinking this is a bash the roman catholics thread.

The issue of who is correctly remembering the "Tradition," of who rebelled against whom, of who is heterodox and who is orthodox, of which dogmas may be rejected and not be a heretic and which can be rejected - these are all issues for you and Catholics to address.

"Protestant" is a term Catholics invented to describe certain persons not officially registered in congregations associated with the RC denomination. Luther did not excuse himself and leave the RC, he was excommunicated by the Pope. I have stated repeatedly that I regard the RCC to be a fully valid denomination, I regard ALL Catholic believers to be my FULL UNseparated brothers and sisters in Christ, EQUALLY a part of His church. I consider all her clergy and Sacraments to be valid. I consider NOTHING she teaches to be unbiblical or heretical. I would be HONORED to kneel next to a receive His literal Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist with any Catholic. These things are far from mutual. I think you have the "protest" thing perhaps a tad backwards, at least for many of us "Protestants."



Thank you...


Pax...


- Josiah



.

 

[ScottBot]

AMEN, end of story..

This disrespect for the Word of God is a testimony in itself.. it speaks volumes as to what their authority is.. and is not..

Noone has disrespecting the Scriptures, we just don't consider it the final authority. The Scriptures are an essential, but not sufficient guide for adequate Christian living. Its akin to breathing. To make the claim that breathing is essential to life is an understatement. To claim that breathing is suffient for life is absurd. You can't life without air, but you can't life solely on air either. Not disrespecting air, or the mechanism of breathing. Just a statement of Truth. orthodoxy has made the point quite clear. Christ did not send a book to preach the Gospel. He sent the Church. THe Church, without the cornerstone of the Gospel is like a house built on the sand. A person who cannot breath will die. Likewise, air, without an organism to nourish with oxygen, is purposeless as well. The Church and the Scriptures are intimately bound within eachother, one meaningless without the other.

 

[Lynn73]

How can a book that is not complete in the stories and teachings of Jesus Christ be the "final authority" in anything?

That's truly a sad statement and, frankly, I see it as a devilish attack on God's word. The Bible is complete as far as God's purposes for it are concerned. It's sufficient for us and everything that needs to be there is there. I think you're very mistaken and deceived to say that the Bible can't be the final authority in ANYTHING. This word that God holds even above His own name. I probably will never understand this kind of reasoning.

 

[orthodoxy]

No group of human beings has a higher authority over the word of God. The reason we're to "tell it to the church" is that Christ's real church is going to make judgments according to the Scriptures. You capitalize the church as if it were deity and, imho, put your church in the place of God. No matter how you spin it, if a church doesn't look to the Scriptures as their authority, you can be sure it isn't Christ's church because Christ's church will uphold the truth and be grounded in it but it is NOT the truth itself. And that truth is in Christ and the word of God. That's where the true authority is, even though you keep trying to place it in the hands of YOUR church, just as those in the RCC keep trying ot place it in the hands of theirs.

No group of human beings has a higher authority over the word of God. The reason we're to "tell it to the church" is that Christ's real church is going to make judgments according to the Scriptures.

In Acts 1 they did not resort to reading scripture to solve this problem of replacing the "bishoprick" of Judas. Acts 1 they appointed Matthias by casting lots not the council of the scripture.

In Acts 15 Paul who was abiding in the words of Jesus Christ by "telling it to the Church" went to the Church sheparded by James as bishop of Jerusalem in which they as a community solved the issue of circumcision within the Church agreeing with the Holy Spirit without the aid of the Scripture's "final authority". Fact is they did not once referance the scripture in making this most authoritative landmark decision. So apparently you are adding to scripture something that does not exist.....

You capitalize the church as if it were deity and, imho, put your church in the place of God.

Jesus Christ said the Church is "ME" in Acts 8 and 9, I just agree with Him for He is God. Paul says the "Church" is the "fulness of Him", I just agree with Paul, Condemn me if you wish but I agree with this man of God and with God Himself in Jesus Christ.

No matter how you spin it, if a church doesn't look to the Scriptures as their authority, you can be sure it isn't Christ's church because Christ's church will uphold the truth and be grounded in it but it is NOT the truth itself.

Well again I just agree with Paul when he states in his letter to Timothy that the "Church is the pillar and ground of truth". I must believe the words stated by Holy Spirit filled men and not the opinions of a 20th century person that rejects the authority of those men.

And that truth is in Christ and the word of God. That's where the true authority is, even though you keep trying to place it in the hands of YOUR church, just as those in the RCC keep trying ot place it in the hands of theirs.

It is not "My Church" as you have stated. The Church is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is the Church, the "fulness of Him". I just abide "in Him" because I abide "in His Church".

Read Matthew 18:17 for the words Jesus used for those that deny the work of His Church in settling disputes among the "breathren".

the unworthy

kyril

 

[ScottBot]

That's truly a sad statement and, frankly, I see it as a devilish attack on God's word. The Bible is complete as far as God's purposes for it are concerned. It's sufficient for us and everything that needs to be there is there. I think you're very mistaken and deceived to say that the Bible can't be the final authority in ANYTHING. This word that God holds even above His own name. I probably will never understand this kind of reasoning.

Lynn, you are skirting "devilishly" (to use your own term) close to bibliolatry in claiming that God holds the Scriptures above His own name, i.e. His very nature of being.

 

[Carico]

Where did Jesus Christ "ordain and send" the bible into all the world to preach the gospel?

Where did Jesus Christ proclaim the scripture as the "final authroity" in a Christians life?

How can a book that is not complete in the stories and teachings of Jesus Christ be the "final authority" in anything?

pondering

kyril

Because of John 1:1-3 and John 1:14. Jesus also tells us in John 16:12, "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear." God reveals to us exactly what we need to know, no more, no less. Any more or any less would lead us to focus no the worng things even more than we do now. So the bible is as complete as it needs to be to know what he wants for us.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

where did God send a book after Jesus Christ, the Son of God, sent 11 men in the same manner as the Father sent Him to preach His gospel as stated in John 20:21-23?

Haven't you heard? God sent the NT at the hand of the Apostles and disciples, of whom the Church Fathers. such as Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Pappias, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Origin, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, etc, all quoted extensively calling the NT books, "Sacred Scripture".

 

[orthodoxy]

Because of John 1:1-3 and John 1:14. Jesus also tells us in John 16:12, "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear." God reveals to us exactly what we need to know, no more, no less. Any more or any less would lead us to focus no the worng things even more than we do now. So the bible is as complete as it needs to be to know what he wants for us.

Jesus taught for 40 days after the resurrection and prior to His Ascension not mentioned in the "Sacred Scripture" that the Church today still teaches through tradition that the heterodox reject because this these traditions are not written down.

The Holy Spirit teaches the Church through His guidance leading the Church in ALL truth John 16:13. Since you personally cannot stake claim to "all truth" yet the Church can say it is the "pillar and ground of truth" I will believe the Church and its understanding before I lean on yours or any heterodox interpretation.

Plainly the bible is not the complete "Word of God" because the Church is the "fulness of Him" bodily in the flesh Ephesians 1:22-23.

The scripture is the spoken word of God in print. Jesus Christ in His fulness of the Word of God in the flesh.

the unworthy

kyril

 

[Lynn73]

Jesus Christ said the Church is "ME" in Acts 8 and 9, I just agree with Him for He is God. Paul says the "Church" is the "fulness of Him", I just agree with Paul, Condemn me if you wish but I agree with this man of God and with God Himself in Jesus Christ.

Jesus isn't both the Bridegroom and the bride. Only in the sense that those who persecute Christians (the church) also persecute Christ. Just as if someone hurt a family member, they hurt me. That doesn't make me the family member.

Well again I just agree with Paul when he states in his letter to Timothy that the "Church is the pillar and ground of truth". I must believe the words stated by Holy Spirit filled men and not the opinions of a 20th century person that rejects the authority of those men.

I'm sorry but that Scripture is so misused it isn't funny. You need to look at a little closer. The church isn't the truth itself. It's the pillar and ground which means it's to uphold it and it's to be grounded in the truth and if it isn't then it isn't Christ's church. And the truth it's to uphold and be grounded in is Christ, the gospel, and the word of God.

It is not "My Church" as you have stated. The Church is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is the Church, the "fulness of Him". I just abide "in Him" because I abide "in His Church".

Read Matthew 18:17 for the words Jesus used for those that deny the work of His Church in settling disputes among the "breathren".

the unworthy

kyril

I abide in His church also because I'm saved. And I still stand on the Bible being the final authority, not the church. If that were the case, any group claiming to be the church could dictating doctrine any way it chooses and since they are the final authority there would be no way for anyone to test the spirits as the Scripture tells us to do. We could not do as the Bereans and look to the Scriptures to see if what they tell us is true.

 

[orthodoxy]

Haven't you heard? God sent the NT at the hand of the Apostles and disciples, of whom the Church Fathers. such as Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Pappias, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Origin, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, etc, all quoted extensively calling the NT books, "Sacred Scripture".

So you are saying no men after these were sent by God and this is where God appointed the book as authority over men?

Paul wrote all his letters to back up his oral instructions which BTW he placed in authority along with written episltes. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Paul encouraged Timothy to “continue ... in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (3.14). Presumably, Paul is referring to himself (see verse 10, “thou has fully known my doctrine&#8221, and urging Timothy to remain a faithful follower of his (Paul’s) teachings. Plainly, then, though Paul held the scriptures in high regard, he considered additional instruction (his own) to be necessary as well.

What does Luke tell us as to why he wrote his gospel?

Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Luke orally taught Theophilus then wrote him to solidify his oral teachings begotten by eyewitness and tradition taught to him by the Apostles, oral teachings wrote the gospel of Luke.

the unworthy

kyril