Final and Only Authority

[Adonia]

Has anyone else noticed that every person including the author of the OP has quoted scripture alone to support their positions? But hey, can't find any proof in Scripture Alone!!

We only do it because you demand our claims be backed up by Scripture. And then when we do so, you claim WE have the bogus interpretation. Yes, the Scriptures do indeed say that we are to take our concerns TO THE CHURCH, i.e., to the real live leaders of the Church for their wisdom and knowledge to decide things. We are never told to just open up a book and find the answers for ourselves, to make our own private interpretations there.

 

[Revmitchell]

We only do it because you demand our claims be backed up by Scripture. And then when we do so, you claim WE have the bogus interpretation. Yes, the Scriptures do indeed say that we are to take our concerns TO THE CHURCH, i.e., to the real live leaders of the Church for their wisdom and knowledge to decide things. We are never told to just open up a book and find the answers for ourselves, to make our own private interpretations there.

Where are you told the "real live leaders of the church" are to make an interpretation for you?

 

[utilyan]

#1 Thing Sola Scriptura does is try to trash the example Jesus left for us and replacing it with a GODLESS contact.



Jesus Christ is our perfect example of how to live:

John 5

19Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20“For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. 21“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22“For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.


Jesus has GOD, But you are taught is you have no contact with God you only have contact with INK AND PAPER.


Anyone who has contact with God could never tell me scripture is the highest authority with a straight face.

They know GOD is the highest authority. And that his means of communication isn't not limited by our declarations on it.

Like this FAKE declaration that scripture is the final and only authority.

 

[Revmitchell]

Jesus has GOD, But you are taught is you have no contact with God you only have contact with INK AND PAPER.

This is called the strawman fallacy

 

[Adonia]

Where are you told the "real live leaders of the church" are to make an interpretation for you?

Let's see, we have Matthew 18 v 17. " And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican". Now what else could this passage mean except the real live leaders of the church?

And 1 Thessalonians 5:12 " And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you".

How about Acts 8 30-31? "Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

2 Peter 3:16 says: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction".

 

[HankD]

So you are saying you do not know if it does? .

I know it does.

How about yourself and why or why not.

HankD

 

[Revmitchell]

Let's see, we have Matthew 18 v 17. " And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican". Now what else could this passage mean except the real live leaders of the church?

Well it could mean leaders of the church and it could also mean all of the church.

And 1 Thessalonians 5:12 " And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you".

This has nothing to do with the interpretation of scripture.

How about Acts 8 30-31? "Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

It does not say we need a leader of the church to interpret scripture. This is an example of a believer explaining the gospel to a lost person.

2 Peter 3:16 says: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction".

The context of that is scoffers not believers.

 

[Adonia]

Well it could mean leaders of the church and it could also mean all of the church.



This has nothing to do with the interpretation of scripture.



It does not say we need a leader of the church to interpret scripture. This is an example of a believer explaining the gospel to a lost person.



The context of that is scoffers not believers.

Most people in the world were not literate for many centuries, especially in the beginning from the 1st century on, into the 15th and 16th centuries, even I dare say up into the 18th and 19th centuries. Schooling for children just was not compulsory for the longest of times, so therefore when it comes to religious matters, someone had to do the interpreting.

This "personal interpretation" doctrine really didn't start until Martin Luther for the great majority of believers. And then right off the bat you had him (Luther), Wesley, and Zwingli among others coming to different conclusions of what the Scriptures were saying, and to me that is not an exercise that inspires confidence with the personal interpretation idea.

 

[Revmitchell]

Most people in the world were not literate for many centuries, especially in the beginning from the 1st century on, into the 15th and 16th centuries, even I dare say up into the 18th and 19th centuries. Schooling for children just was not compulsory for the longest of times, so therefore when it comes to religious matters, someone had to do the interpreting.

Which is irrelevant to what scripture says and that was not in view anywhere in scripture.

This "personal interpretation" doctrine really didn't start until Martin Luther for the great majority of believers. And then right off the bat you had him (Luther), Wesley, and Zwingli among others coming to different conclusions of what the Scriptures were saying, and to me that is not an exercise that inspires confidence with the personal interpretation idea.

Catholics have different conclusions as well. Right within scripture there were different conclusions mentioned.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5:30 PM Pacific.

 

[steaver]

When I share my faith I first try to demonstrate it by my life. We should witness every day and say a few words if necessary. The ultimate test here on earth is how my faith has changed my life and the encounters with God I've had when I most needed Him. I talk about job losses, bad relationships, depression, and challenging medical situations. I show in that way how my Biblical beliefs and my personal relationship with Jesus Christ has given me hope and even joy in difficult (and also happy) times.

AMEN! All great stuff!

But ultimately, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. We have to do both love and preach. We can and should love our neighbor and show our love of God always, but unless that sinner hears they are guilty before a holy God and they receive the Gospel, all that loving them will not produce salvation for them personally.

 

[steaver]

I know it does.

Great! Then it's not just by faith for you, you KNOW it is God's Word.

How about yourself and why or why not.

I believe I thoroughly gave you my whys. Just go back and read my post with you.

 

[JonC]

" I gave you a verse, however, claiming Scripture is a final authority."

READ IT TO ME. POST IT.

Show me chapter/verse.

I better see the words FINAL AND ONLY AUTHORITY. Not something letting you know that scripture is helpful for GOOD WORKS.

No.I gave you a verse saying Scripture is A final authority. Does that exceed your comprehension?

 

[steaver]

Well we are coming to a close with this thread and what have we learned concerning Catholic true Final Authority?

The Scripture is NOT, I repeat, is NOT our Final Authority! Just give me a Bible and I will prove it to you.

As we can see by the exchanges in this thread, ultimately the Scripture is EVERY Christian's Final Authority. It ALWAYS goes back to Scripture.

 

[HankD]

Great! Then it's not just by faith for you, you KNOW it is God's Word.

Right, Its both, in some respects its circular reasoning. I dont try to figure it out.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Why do I "know" it?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.


HankD

 

[steaver]

Why do I "know" it?

We "know" it Hank, because the Holy Spirit has taught us.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1Jo2:27)

 

[HankD]

We "know" it Hank, because the Holy Spirit has taught us.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1Jo2:27)

Of course.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus recognized the seat of Moses,

Jesus recognized the established covenant of the Eucharist which is communicated not with ink and paper.

Jesus did write out a contract and say this is my body, this is my blood come sign this contract over here.

A covenant is an agreement, if anything the supremacy of legality rests with the method Jesus Christ performs rather then YOUR method of INK and PAPER.

You have NOTHING in scripture that says INK and PAPER is higher form legally, In fact I can show scripture says the CONTRARY!

2 Corinthians 3

2You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
4Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 5Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6who also made us adequate asservants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

We Catholics are TRUE Bible Believing Christians, There is no bigger departing of scripture then claiming a unbiblical rule to exist as biblical, and then not being able to show scripture to support it.

Show us this verse that plainly states the bible is the Final and Only authority.

You do know that the body and body were of a symbolic nature, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Jewish tradition, including the extra-biblical Mishna (Exodus Rabbah 43:4 and the Pesikta siRav Kahana 1:7), describes “teaching succession” from Moses on down. Jesus acknowledges this tradition:

Matthew 23:1-3 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”

Here Jesus is sanctioning a tradition of pharisaical authority, and in so doing he is giving legitimacy to the concept of extra-biblical oral tradition. Some pharisaical traditions were corrupt (therefore Jesus condemned them, just as here he condemns their personal hypocrisy), but some were authoritative, so that even Jesus commands obedience to them.

Except that Jesus had NO use for the oral tradition of the Pharisees, as those were the traditions of Men, and not the commandments from and of God!

 

[agedman]

The OP author states in a post he is a Jew.

There is no proof that he is what he claims.

Not a single authority to prove he is a Jew.

There is no single document that proves he is a Jew.

Yet, he makes this claim.

If He were a Jew, he would never put even the church above the authority of the Scriptures.

Nope, there is no proof he even is a Catholic.

What final authority of proof does he offer for the claim.

What about his claim of being Baptist?

Is There a final authority that states such as proof?

But ultimately he has not proved that the RCC is the final authority.

There is no verse that established such.

This thread is just needing closed.