Where does the Bible say that it is the Sole Authority?

[Corinthian]

Can anyone answer this question on authority? And on that note where in the Bible does it say that the Church does not have the Authority?

 

[Atonement]

1st before I answer a question of this nature. I would need you to explain a little more about "authority?" When you say "sole authority," do you mean the final word, matter, or answers? The Church having authority is another issue as well. What type of authority are you talking about? In Revelation the Church will rule and reign with Christ, is this the type of authority you are speaking of? I need you to elaborate on your position before a accurate answer is given.

 

[unred typo]

Corinthian wrote on Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:39 pm
Can anyone answer this question on authority? And on that note where in the Bible does it say that the Church does not have the Authority?

I don’t know about Sole Authority. I’m presuming you mean here on earth. The verse that comes to mind of course is 2 Timothy 3:15-17

And that from a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I would not be calling the Bible the ‘Sole Authority’ based on this however. Any writing can be profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness but we have to be discerning whenever we take a man’s word as the word of God. As 2 Peter 2:1 says:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

When much of the New Testament was being written, there were other scriptures that were considered from God that have not been included in our Bible. At this point, I don’t know for sure that the letters of Paul were considered to be part of the body of ‘holy scriptures’ and Paul himself made special mention of his speaking for the Lord when he considered this to be the fact. This is not to say that everything he wrote was not what the Lord had given him to write, but we have to understand to whom he was writing and why. Peter said God gave Paul wisdom but also warned that he was hard to understand if you didn’t follow what he meant carefully.

2 Peter 3:14-16
Wherefore, beloved, seeing that you look for such things, be diligent that you may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him has written unto you; 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 wrestle, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The things written were to teach the Jews about what was to come and give them the hope of the Messiah.

Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

My favorite misquote is “the Word of God is not bound†and I would add that the Word is not a book, but a person. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us. He was with us and now since the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh, he can be in us. We have no need that any man teach us (from the past or the present) when we learn to listen to the Word who speaks to our hearts and minds.

1 John 2:26-27
These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
But the anointing which you have received of him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, you shall abide in him.

Corinthian wrote:
And on that note where in the Bible does it say that the Church does not have the Authority?

Where do you think the Bible says that the church has the authority, which church is that referring to and what authority is that?

 

[Corinthian]

Corinthian wrote on Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:39 pm
Can anyone answer this question on authority? And on that note where in the Bible does it say that the Church does not have the Authority?

I don’t know about Sole Authority. I’m presuming you mean here on earth. The verse that comes to mind of course is 2 Timothy 3:15-17




[quote:d0b74]But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

When much of the New Testament was being written, there were other scriptures that were considered from God that have not been included in our Bible. At this point, I don’t know for sure that the letters of Paul were considered to be part of the body of ‘holy scriptures’ and Paul himself made special mention of his speaking for the Lord when he considered this to be the fact. This is not to say that everything he wrote was not what the Lord had given him to write, but we have to understand to whom he was writing and why. Peter said God gave Paul wisdom but also warned that he was hard to understand if you didn’t follow what he meant carefully.

2 Peter 3:14-16
Wherefore, beloved, seeing that you look for such things, be diligent that you may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him has written unto you; 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 wrestle, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The things written were to teach the Jews about what was to come and give them the hope of the Messiah.

Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

My favorite misquote is “the Word of God is not bound†and I would add that the Word is not a book, but a person. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us. He was with us and now since the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh, he can be in us. We have no need that any man teach us (from the past or the present) when we learn to listen to the Word who speaks to our hearts and minds.

1 John 2:26-27
These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
But the anointing which you have received of him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, you shall abide in him.

Corinthian wrote:
And on that note where in the Bible does it say that the Church does not have the Authority?

Where do you think the Bible says that the church has the authority, which church is that referring to and what authority is that?[/quote:d0b74]


Im asking, how could the Bible have been put together with no earthly central authority to physically put it together, compiling the correct books and leaving out those which were not inspired. Certainly there was debate over which books belonged in the Bible. God didnt directly tell us which books were inspired, so how did we know? And referring to 2Peter 2:1 who is to say which doctrine is valid, and which is heresy if there is no central authority (When peter wrote this, the Bible wasnt going to be put together for another 3-4 centuries, so no one could referr to its writings regarding new teaching saying that it was inspired and therefore no error in a debate) If theres no central authority, one mans opinion is worth no more than the man next to him. When there is debate on more modern issues such as Birth control and anything else dealt with over the centuries, how can there be a definitive ruling on such issues when they are not directly spoken about in scripture. And even if they were, wouldnt it be subject to each persons interpretation. One example would be the issue of divorce and re-marriage, Catholics will tell me it is Adultery and thus a sin, while a branch of the Baptists will say its ok. Who is right? when I read the question about divorce, I see divorce and re-marriage as a sin. In regards to you asking where the Church has authority, I will cite Matthew 16:18 "You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church." Its clear that Jesus is building a Church in which Peter and the rest of the apostles will share authority, but Peter is given a higher status when the keys are given to him (the word you was singular, when Jesus says I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, I believe this was prophecized in Isaiah 22:22) These keys of authority did not did not disappear with the death of Peter, but were bestowed upon his successor by Peter and so on and so forth through the centuries to his current successor Benedict XVI. No one else today can claim that authority, not even the Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox havent had a ecumenical council in over 1000 years because no one there has authority to call one. The Church I was referring to is the One visible universal Church.

 

[unred typo]

Corinthian wrote on Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:03 pm

Im asking, how could the Bible have been put together with no earthly central authority to physically put it together, compiling the correct books and leaving out those which were not inspired. Certainly there was debate over which books belonged in the Bible. God didnt directly tell us which books were inspired, so how did we know?

First of all, who can claim that it was put together with all the correct books, leaving out only those that were not inspired? Why was the book of Jasher accepted in the first centuries and later dumped?

Corinthian wrote:

And referring to 2Peter 2:1 who is to say which doctrine is valid, and which is heresy if there is no central authority (When peter wrote this, the Bible wasnt going to be put together for another 3-4 centuries, so no one could referr to its writings regarding new teaching saying that it was inspired and therefore no error in a debate)

I’ll probably be tarred and feathered for saying this but I don’t think God intended for the Bible to be compiled and become the source of debate that it has become, any more than he had intended that Israel be governed by an earthly king. I believe that God has allowed it as an authority on spiritual matters but it is a poor second to the Holy Spirit. I say this, and I love the Bible. In fact, I love Catholics and feel a closer kinship with them than the fundamental, Bible-believing, “Saved-by-Grace Alone,†‘born-again’ ignorers of Jesus Christ. I think francisdesales is ‘Da Man!' But I don’t agree on a few points. This is one.

Corinthian wrote :
If theres no central authority, one mans opinion is worth no more than the man next to him. When there is debate on more modern issues such as Birth control and anything else dealt with over the centuries, how can there be a definitive ruling on such issues when they are not directly spoken about in scripture. And even if they were, wouldnt it be subject to each persons interpretation. One example would be the issue of divorce and re-marriage, Catholics will tell me it is Adultery and thus a sin, while a branch of the Baptists will say its ok. Who is right? when I read the question about divorce, I see divorce and re-marriage as a sin.

There is a central authority… the Holy Spirit. Every issue could be resolved if everyone would speak the truth in love and put the needs of others ahead of their own. The guiding light is love for one another, not the love of ‘being right.’ We are to walk in love, in close fellowship with God through the Spirit, not in rules.

1 John 2:20/27
But you have an unction from the Holy One, and you know all things.

But the anointing which you have received of him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in him.

John is not speaking to Peter or future popes, but ordinary people who love God and their fellowman.

This prophesy is to Israel and by extension, to us, to whom the gospel finally declared:

10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Corinthian wrote

In regards to you asking where the Church has authority, I will cite Matthew 16:18 "You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church." Its clear that Jesus is building a Church in which Peter and the rest of the apostles will share authority, but Peter is given a higher status when the keys are given to him (the word you was singular, when Jesus says I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, I believe this was prophecized in Isaiah 22:22) These keys of authority did not did not disappear with the death of Peter, but were bestowed upon his successor by Peter and so on and so forth through the centuries to his current successor Benedict XVI. No one else today can claim that authority, not even the Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox havent had a ecumenical council in over 1000 years because no one there has authority to call one. The Church I was referring to is the One visible universal Church.

If this were so, why is it that the church of Rome was not mentioned in the Revelation? I would think those churches would be admonished to hold to their leader and follow the popes that were seated there, but no mention is made of Peter or this great authority given him. No account is recorded of the passing down of Peter’s high place among the disciples, nor is there a vote made to bring in a new pope, as there was for Matthias to fill Judas‘ shoes. These omissions are telling us something else is meant by the giving of the keys.

First, they are not the keys of hell and of death or the key of David. We can see who has those:

Revelation 1:18 I am he that lives, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

7And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that opens, and no man shuts; and shuts, and no man opens;

Another place to mention Peter’s preeminence is conspicuously omitted. Notice that Peter is not mentioned as being above the 24 elders in heaven, nor is he said to be able to open the book or loosen the seals.

Keys open and lock doors of prisons and leg irons. Having the keys to heaven is having the gospel…the message of truth that unlocks the chains that bind sin’s captives awaiting death. When we are told the good news that the price has been paid and we are free to walk in love and mercy instead of condemnation, the key to everything about Christ and his teaching is given to us and the way is opened to attain salvation. These keys are given to Peter to give to all, not to hold avariciously for the next leader. When the mother of Zebedee’s boys came to ask for preeminence for his sons, what did Jesus say?

Matthew 20:25-28

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Look at the verses again without prejudice for your hero, if you are able:

16And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Peter had been given the key words to understand this secret of the OT scriptures about Jesus and he opens this fact to all the disciples but they were not to reveal it to the masses until after the Holy Spirit had been poured out on all flesh. Jesus came to bring a message of life which became possible by his death and to open the way to heaven for all who follow him.

I’m sorry for the length of this. Those who are dull of reading don’t need to hear it anyways, since being given more truth than you are willing to accept is more of a savor of death than life.

 

[francisdesales]

When much of the New Testament was being written, there were other scriptures that were considered from God that have not been included in our Bible.

That is true. A number of letters were accepted by some communities as being inspired by God. The Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians were very highly regarded books, being read at many community Eucharistic gatherings (which was a sign that THAT community accepted the writing as from God.)

At this point, I don’t know for sure that the letters of Paul were considered to be part of the body of ‘holy scriptures’ and Paul himself made special mention of his speaking for the Lord when he considered this to be the fact. This is not to say that everything he wrote was not what the Lord had given him to write, but we have to understand to whom he was writing and why.

Second Peter gives an indication that at least SOME of Paul's writings were Scriptural, and I think Paul HIMSELF would believe that his writings were "inspired", because he says his teachings are infallible (Gal 1:8,9).

Peter said God gave Paul wisdom but also warned that he was hard to understand if you didn’t follow what he meant carefully.

And this was the role of the teachers and elders of the various communities. It had been accepted that the Apostles had commissioned various men at different communities to preach and maintain the doctrines once given to them. Since they laid hands on them (a sign of a giving of the Spirit), the community accepted that God Himself was commissioning these successors through the action of the Church. It was to them that Paul told to hold onto the traditions once given, whether oral or written. The oral would have to include proper interpretation of the Old Testament, since it must be read with Christian lenses to get the fulfillment that Christ had come to complete.

Regarding Scriptures, one must recognize what was going through the mind of the Church at the time. The Church Fathers were UNANIMOUS on noting that the Church had the right to set the canon - thus, even St. Jerome agreed that the Church's decision on what WAS Scripture was to be accepted by Christians.

As such, we come tor realize where authority ultimately rests. The community recognized what was from God and compiled it, reading it a particular way. THEY were the earthly authority of guiding and guarding the teachings handed down by the Apostles. Thus, in the end, the Bible CANNOT be the sole authority of teaching in the Christian community, since the Christian community ITSELF established and interprets the Bible, led by the Spirit of God, not the other way around. The Bible didn't establish and interpret the Christian community.

Regards

 

[unred typo]

It’s all about ‘love one another.’ The rest are details and the devil is in the details… who wants to dwell in those? The reason for the deacons was to administer the money given by richer members fairly among the widows, orphans and poor. The reason for the body of believers meeting together was for worship of God, encouragement, sharing and to provoke one another to love and good works. There is no need for a building, let alone a fancy, expensive one. Believers can meet in homes, in fields, on the street, anywhere, anytime. There is no need for extensive Bible studies. The Bible is good reading but when it causes divisions and bitterness, it’s time to set it down and find out where the love went. If there is sin, it is because there has been a breach in the contract to love one another.

 

[francisdesales]

It’s all about ‘love one another.’ The rest are details and the devil is in the details… who wants to dwell in those?

I agree that "love one another" is the crucial theme of Christ's teaching, but I do not think that was all He taught. He also taught correct belief. Apparently, part of His teaching was that HE fulfilled the OT promise, a promise of a Messiah that would lead to God's Peace.

Where did the love go? Good question. I am not sure the cause of that, but I think a big part of it is the typical Christian, including myself, and the draw of the modern world, with many Western beliefs that are anti-thetical to the Gospel message. I think preachers and teachers of the Gospel have a huge, uphill battle to face in the First World countries of the world.

Today's Gospel message at Catholic Churches today was the message that Jesus did not come to give peace, but to bring division. Coupled with the section from Jeremiah that we heard proclaimed, the Gospel message is indeed against the message we hear in our society today. It IS the cause of division. Thus, being a Christian is today's world does NOT mean to blend in with society but to often times speak against it.

Regards

 

[unred typo]

francisdesales wrote:
I agree that "love one another" is the crucial theme of Christ's teaching, but I do not think that was all He taught. He also taught correct belief. Apparently, part of His teaching was that HE fulfilled the OT promise, a promise of a Messiah that would lead to God's Peace.

Where did the love go? Good question. I am not sure the cause of that, but I think a big part of it is the typical Christian, including myself, and the draw of the modern world, with many Western beliefs that are anti-thetical to the Gospel message. I think preachers and teachers of the Gospel have a huge, uphill battle to face in the First World countries of the world.

Today's Gospel message at Catholic Churches today was the message that Jesus did not come to give peace, but to bring division. Coupled with the section from Jeremiah that we heard proclaimed, the Gospel message is indeed against the message we hear in our society today. It IS the cause of division. Thus, being a Christian is today's world does NOT mean to blend in with society but to often times speak against it.

You’re right. Jesus brings division, but it shouldn't be between those who believe in his message. Those who want to live in sin and get ahead at all costs, stomping on the people underfoot will always distance themselves from his message of sacrificial love and forgiveness.

I don’t mean to imply that love was all Jesus taught but the other things he had to say about himself and his position were to show himself qualified to make the promises he made about eternal life. How much study do we need to know that? I suppose it depends on the skepticism of the learner, huh?

 

[cyberjosh]

Can anyone answer this question on authority? And on that note where in the Bible does it say that the Church does not have the Authority?

Hey here's a better question: where in the Bible does it even say that any person's words (including God) can have, or do have, "authority"? If we can establish this then the answer will become more clear.

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Can anyone answer this question on authority? And on that note where in the Bible does it say that the Church does not have the Authority?

Hey here's a better question: where in the Bible does it even say that any person's words (including God) can have, or do have, "authority"? If we can establish this then the answer will become more clear.

~Josh

The Bible is chock full of people whom the community listen to... They believe that the message is from God - whether it was transmitted orally or in written letter. This question really is answered over and over in the Scriptures and as related hundreds of years later by the Scriptures. In the end, people believe the messenger. Or not.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Jesus brings division, but it shouldn't be between those who believe in his message. Those who want to live in sin and get ahead at all costs, stomping on the people underfoot will always distance themselves from his message of sacrificial love and forgiveness.

I am certain Jesus knew His message would divide even believers - He uses the message of division within the family, those closest to us. Naturally, this would seem to apply to believers of Christ with different ideas of whom He is. The Bible even makes that clear in the later writings where John and Peter and Paul warn the readers to beware of false teachings from people who are, in some ways, believers in parts of the message of Christ.

I don’t mean to imply that love was all Jesus taught but the other things he had to say about himself and his position were to show himself qualified to make the promises he made about eternal life. How much study do we need to know that? I suppose it depends on the skepticism of the learner, huh?

I guess the question is "what is necessary to attain eternal life?" What "beliefs" are core and "necessary" to obtain this life? I suppose this question will remain unanswered between people of Christian persuasion until they meet Him at the Judgment Seat. I am not so sure that God wants His revelation narrowed down to a few sound bites - everything He revealed to us has some importance. Thus, doctrine is important WHEN it leads to correct practice, love.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

The Bible is chock full of people whom the community listen to... They believe that the message is from God - whether it was transmitted orally or in written letter. This question really is answered over and over in the Scriptures and as related hundreds of years later by the Scriptures.

Your stealing the thunder Corinthian was supposed to answer me with. Hush! ;) :P (Not a bad explanation though - and as a side note I've read before that it is widely believed that Ezra assembled the present OT canon of the Hebrew Sctiptures).

In the end, people believe the messenger. Or not.

"Which of the prophets have your fathers not killed?" I think you may be on to something.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Guest]

Doesn't the question need to be asked:

What makes the Bible have authority? Is it because a 'church' said so?

 

[Veritas]

Can anyone answer this question on authority? And on that note where in the Bible does it say that the Church does not have the Authority?

God's Word just assumes authority. And it's backed itself up, ...fufilled prophecies, changed lives, changed world, saving power, etc.

 

[francisdesales]

as a side note I've read before that it is widely believed that Ezra assembled the present OT canon of the Hebrew Sctiptures.

I doubt that. It is fairly certain that parts of the OT Scripture were written after Ezra. I think it would be better to say that Sirach, for example, does mention the major parts of Scriptures, but doesn't mention specific books. Saying "the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings" is just not enough... We could include 2 Maccabees in the "Writings" list and we could claim Jesus also is verifying that (which would be a false statement, of course, because the Bible doesn't list the specific books that belong to these major sections)

"Which of the prophets have your fathers not killed?" I think you may be on to something.

Well, we hear people CLAIMING to be giving God's Word even today... The Bible does not say that its canon is closed - the CHURCH does! In the end, the community will decide if something is from God, based on its continuity with past revelation and its own idea of what God might be saying to them.

Regards

 

[Guest]

Can anyone answer this question on authority? And on that note where in the Bible does it say that the Church does not have the Authority?

God's Word just assumes authority. And it's backed itself up, ...fufilled prophecies, changed lives, changed world, saving power, etc.

Very good point Veritas - it reminds me of the first 4 words of the Bible:

In the beginning God.... it does not set out to prove that God exists, it just states it as fact - which is then backed up with evidence.

 

[francisdesales]

God's Word just assumes authority. And it's backed itself up, ...fufilled prophecies, changed lives, changed world, saving power, etc.

Very good point Veritas - it reminds me of the first 4 words of the Bible:

In the beginning God.... it does not set out to prove that God exists, it just states it as fact - which is then backed up with evidence.

Naturally, you are assuming that the Bible IS the Word of God, aren't you? Thus, the circular argument. Genesis 1 doesn't give evidence, by the way. It states it as fact - but that is not evidence. The whole point of "faith" is that the evidence is not fully available yet. (Hebrews). We have FAITH that the Bible is the Word of God. That is as far as it can go.

Regards

 

[Guest]

Very good point Veritas - it reminds me of the first 4 words of the Bible:

In the beginning God.... it does not set out to prove that God exists, it just states it as fact - which is then backed up with evidence.

Naturally, you are assuming that the Bible IS the Word of God, aren't you? Thus, the circular argument. Genesis 1 doesn't give evidence, by the way. It states it as fact - but that is not evidence. The whole point of "faith" is that the evidence is not fully available yet. (Hebrews). We have FAITH that the Bible is the Word of God. That is as far as it can go.

Regards

Francis - please re-read my post. I said that Genesis 1 doesn't give evidence. It states it as fact that God exists. Through the Scriptures it is evident that God does in fact exist.

 

[Rick W]

A question if I may interupt the flow of thought here.

What doctrine/doctrines do outside sources provide or what biblical doctrines are changed by outside sources?