Final and Only Authority

Are you basically denying that the Holy Bible, which consists of 66 Books, is not the Word of God, and therefore not Infallible and the words of mere men?

On the point of whether the term "Scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16, also includes the New Testament, I refer you to 1 Timothy 5:18, " For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”. There are two quotes here, the first is from Deuteronomy 25:4, and the second is from Luke 10:7. Note that both quotes are called "Scripture". And again from 2 Peter, "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures" (3:15-16). Here the writings of Paul are called "Scripture" by Peter, who includes them with the other Books, which would have included the Old Testament.

 

Jesus is the Word. Therefore both Jesus and the Word are perfect. Rome has added custom and tradition to their own detriment. There is nothing in Scripture that says that you have to be a Roman Catholic to go to Heaven but Pope Benedict said that in Italy a few years ago and it is a very ancient saying of Rome. However, there is nothing in Scripture that says that a Vicar of Christ is needed on earth or is necessary for any reason. When you look at Pope Francis and his attacks on everyone he dislikes, you wonder how he represents anything other than Peronist thinking? He has undone the work of Pope John Paul II and reinstated known communist priests in Latin America.

John 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

What about the Church that was established here on earth (yes, it actually happened) and the authority that resides in it? (Which of course is annotated in the Bible we both read).

 

When the institution of the Church was established, it was given the authority to decide such things. The words "whatsoever ye may bind......" comes to mind.

 

Why then why does St. Paul talk about tradition? The way they started worshipping for instance (the Apostles and the various Christian communities around the then known world) was passed on by tradition. And the way to worship and live was determined by the central authority, as St Paul also describes in his letters.

 

It would be helpful if you could detail specific references to this tradition that you are writing about and then explain how it relates to someone becoming the Vicar of Christ, a concept rejected by the Orthodox in 1054 AD and again by the Protestants 500 years ago. Meanwhile Catholicism still teaches that there is no Salvation outside of the walls of the Catholic Church. And then Roman Catholicism has the disaster of Pope Francis who is of the Peronist political movement in Argentina and who believes in Liberation Theology and has reinstated communist priests in Latin America who were set aside by Pope John Paul II. His Peronist ties alone should have disqualified him from the papacy.

 

Was it given the Authority to teach things against the Authority of God's Word?

Your version of the Church having Final Authority is found horribly flawed within the Scripture itself.

Let's look at some of these things you say the Church was given the Authority to bind.

"Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent."

"And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."

How was it going with these churches? Looks like they were losing their way. Now why is that? 1) They left their first love. Just a few decades after Christ departed they were already going about making up their own rules and Jesus Christ was not part of it. 2) They were bringing in doctrines of the devil.

Looks like the Church's "binding" was looking nothing like the Church of Jesus Christ. And what was Jesus' answer to all of this fornication and evil?
Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. THE WORD OF GOD would settle these matters and ultimately do the binding.

You believe the Church can't be wrong. Look how wrong they were just a few decades after Christ departed. The Church does not get to do as it pleases, the Church is governed by the Word of God, thus, the Word of God is the one and ONLY FINAL AUTHORITY. Anyone trying to usurp that Authority from God would be antichrist, as Jesus clearly shown in His rebuke to the Church.

 

Jesus is the "Logos" and not the "rhema". The first is the "expression" as in the "revelation" of "God manifested in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16). the second is the "written" word, as in the writings of the Holy Bible. Jesus is not the same as the "written Word of God", there is a clear distinction. The Roman Catholic "church" teaches a "gospel" that is not based on the "rehma" of God, and therefore a false "gospel" and false "salvation".

 

It was taken to the Church but the "Church (RCC)" had corrupted itself and the reformation was required.

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

it is a faith principle and therefore not a lie.

The just shall live by faith.


HankD

 

You have not answered my very simple question?

 

If t

If the Bible is not the only Authority, then what else is? Some people say the Pope, or a Pastor, or a Revelation, etc.. The problem with this is that how do we know that they are correct? How do we know that it is truly from God? How do we know if they are making things up? We wouldn't really be able to tell. The best way is to stick to scripture ALONE and nothing else. The bible is true and it cannot be in error so therefore it is the ONLY authority by which Christians should follow. I think this is very basic and logical argument.

 

There do

There doesn't have to be a verse stating that the Bible is the ONLY authority in order for the Bible to be the ONLY authority. Do you believe in the Trinity? I bet you do. Show me a verse that says that God is a "triune" being. Show me a verse where the bible says that God is a "Trinity." There is no verse!!! Does that mean God is not a Trinity? Of course not! The bible shows through different verses that He is a Trinity. Now use the same argument in this case!

 

1 John 5:7, as found in reliable Bible versions, like the King James, New King James, we have this very important verse, which is the clearest Teaching from the Holy Bible on the Holy Trinity:

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one"

It was corrupted at a very early time, because of its Great Truth. However, God did preserve this reading, which was known at a very early time to the Christian writers, like Tertullian and Cyprian, both who lived about 200 years before our oldest known Greek manuscripts.

 

Is this official RCC teaching? To me, this is a distinction without a difference. For one thing, the Word was spoken first and Scripture is merely the written copy. I cannot believe that the Pope is superior to Scripture.

Here is a paper published by Liberty University commenting on your point:

Some may argue that there is a difference between the written and the spoken Word of God,
which in turn exposes one problem when defining the authority of Scripture. Many, even those
among Christendom, see the Bible as nothing more than an ancient literary work finished nearly
two-thousand years ago, begging the question, what authority does this ancient work bear on
modern life? Martin S. Jaffee states, “Ontologies of the written and spoken word are thus bound
up with systems of power relationships,”2 which indicates that the nature of the “Word,” its
being, is the same whether spoken or written. Agreeing with the correspondence of the word of
God regardless of form, Herman A. Preus comments, “The Word, whether written, spoken, or
signed, is the same Word,” prefaced by, “…God speaks to us in three different ways. But it is the
2 Martin S. Jaffee, "A Rabbinic Ontology of the Written and Spoken Word: On Discipleship, Transformative Knowledge, and the Living Texts of Oral Torah," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 65, no. 3 (September 1997): 525-549. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 29, 2016), 529.
2
Diligence: Journal of the Liberty University Online Religion Capstone in Research and Scholarship, Vol. 1 [2016], Iss. 1, Art. 1
"The Authority of Scripture" by James T. Myers III


same Word that He speaks in all three.”3 Thus, for believers there need not be a distinction,
which is useful to the debate and illustrated in the commonly quoted verses for biblical authority.

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=djrc

 

I don't follow your response? I was mainly responding to the comments, "Jesus is the Word. Therefore both Jesus and the Word are perfect.", where it appears that Jesus Christ is equated to the "written Word" (Holy Bible) in some sense? The words that "both Jesus and the Word are perfect.", show that there is a distinction intended, which cannot refer to John 1:1, etc, where Jesus is called the "Logos"