Biblical Authority

[JohnDB]

So....
Apparently this is a thing.

Does the church (man) have authority over the Scriptures
OR
Do the Scriptures have authority over the Church?

It's along similar lines of the old question paradox:

Does God have a Plan for me?
VX
What is God's plan and how can I be a part of it?

 

[Augustin56]

Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He founded a Church to do so. The Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church, preceded the New Testament. In fact the athors of the New Testament were Catholics, inspired by the Holy Spirit. In the late 4th century, the Catholic Church at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance, reviewed over 300 letters, books, writings, etc., and selected the 27 we today call the New Testament as being worthy of being called Holy Scripture. It is the Church that has the authority to interpret Scripture without error, not the individual. In fact, St. Peter warned against personal interpretation of Scripture with regard to prophecy (official teachings) in 2 Peter 1:20, which says, "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation". And, yet, this is what all Protestantism is based upon. Someone's personal interpretation of Scripture. That's why there are literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting and disagreeing denominations (and counting). Hardly the grounding for truth and unity.

 

[MA2444]

So....
Apparently this is a thing.

Does the church (man) have authority over the Scriptures
OR
Do the Scriptures have authority over the Church?

It's along similar lines of the old question paradox:

Does God have a Plan for me?
VX
What is God's plan and how can I be a part of it?

I think that, neither one (Does the church (man) have authority over the Scriptures
OR
Do the Scriptures have authority over the Church?). We have the authority that was given to us, in Jesus Name. Or else I didnt understand the question, lol. In a roundabout way, the word of God has authority over the church, because it tells us what to do and how to live!
And we (the church) are admonished in scripture to not add to it do not take away from it, sh the church has zero authority over the word of God.

God does have a plan for us and it is written down in the bible for us and handy to carry and have with us. Eventually we write the words of the bible upon our heart because we have meditated upon them, and read them, and read them again, and on and on we go. Then it becomes a part of you. And you are taught your purpose as you delve deeper into the Lord.

 

[lforrest]

So....
Apparently this is a thing.

Does the church (man) have authority over the Scriptures
OR
Do the Scriptures have authority over the Church?

It's along similar lines of the old question paradox:

Does God have a Plan for me?
VX
What is God's plan and how can I be a part of it?

The solo scriptola movement began in response to the church assuming authority beyond it's purview.

If Jesus held scripture above his own will, I think it safe to say no man has authority to do so. And if they think the scripture itself gives them the authority, they misinterpret.

 

[Rockerduck]

NO Church, no building, no denomination, no pastor, preacher, or pope can save you. God has sovereign control over all aspects of your salvation and receiving salvation. If you do not have a personal relationship with Jesus, you do not have salvation.

 

[JohnDB]

See....
Both up to this point @lforrest & @MA2444 are taking the viewpoint that's is fairly traditional.

However....this is NOT the case with every denomination including Catholics, SDA, and AOG.(several other charismatics too)

Then there's Episcopalians....some do and some don't hold this view.

The whole rift within the Methodist Church is the changing of this viewpoint. Several other denominations and churches are leaning towards this view.

I find it odd....
But the second set of questions/vx is a much more subtle variation of THE EXACT SAME THING. And it has been posted EVERYWHERE by various people asking this question.

 

[JohnDB]

Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He founded a Church to do so. The Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church, preceded the New Testament. In fact the athors of the New Testament were Catholics, inspired by the Holy Spirit. In the late 4th century, the Catholic Church at the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance, reviewed over 300 letters, books, writings, etc., and selected the 27 we today call the New Testament as being worthy of being called Holy Scripture. It is the Church that has the authority to interpret Scripture without error, not the individual. In fact, St. Peter warned against personal interpretation of Scripture with regard to prophecy (official teachings) in 2 Peter 1:20, which says, "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation". And, yet, this is what all Protestantism is based upon. Someone's personal interpretation of Scripture. That's why there are literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting and disagreeing denominations (and counting). Hardly the grounding for truth and unity.

According to the Archeologists and historians I've heard they had a fairly complete New Testament by 100 AD shortly after the Death of St. John and St. Mark.

Only Revelations and Jude were added in ~300 AD because of remote locations and weren't circulated. The Sianaiticus Codex is the oldest from roughly 100 AD. Where it has obvious transcription errors it does include Revelations.

 

[Rockerduck]

See....
Both up to this point @lforrest & @MA2444 are taking the viewpoint that's is fairly traditional.

However....this is NOT the case with every denomination including Catholics, SDA, and AOG.(several other charismatics too)

Then there's Episcopalians....some do and some don't hold this view.

The whole rift within the Methodist Church is the changing of this viewpoint. Several other denominations and churches are leaning towards this view.

I find it odd....
But the second set of questions/vx is a much more subtle variation of THE EXACT SAME THING. And it has been posted EVERYWHERE by various people asking this question.

Jesus cares about His sheep, His own that know Him. The day your received Salvation, you became His and an ambassador of Christ. Jesus does not care about denominations or liturgy or popes, Jesus cares about His own, individually. He guides the path of life of His sheep. You may join a church, or another church, but you might not like one church of believers over another, but you are still His, regardless of building or denomination.

The schisms between church's are really about Christians leaving non-Christians. I can say this having been an officer in the Methodist Church; I saw it firsthand. One group were bible believing Christians, and the other liberal, "God loves everyone", leaders, who are ignoring biblical values and ordaining gay and women pastors.

 

[Augustin56]

According to the Archeologists and historians I've heard they had a fairly complete New Testament by 100 AD shortly after the Death of St. John and St. Mark.

Only Revelations and Jude were added in ~300 AD because of remote locations and weren't circulated. The Sianaiticus Codex is the oldest from roughly 100 AD. Where it has obvious transcription errors it does include Revelations.

But there was no agreement on everything yet. There were many books/writings that were thought to be inspired that didn't make the cut, like the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. Even some of the epistles that are part of the New Testament were relatively little known yet. And there was no Bible under one cover yet. This was all accomplished and finalized through the Councils of Rome, Hippo. and Carthage. They also chose the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, then, too. (There were two versions of the Old Testament, one in Greek and one in Hebrew. The canon for the one in Hebrew wasn't set until the late 1st/early 2nd century as a reaction by the Jews who were unhappy about the new Christians converting Jews by using the Old Testament. And even then, they threw out seven books that had previously been there. That accounts for the difference between the Catholic and most (not all) Protestant Bibles today. Protestants switched versions to the Hebrew version that didn't have those seven books.)

 

[GodsGrace]

Jesus cares about His sheep, His own that know Him. The day your received Salvation, you became His and an ambassador of Christ. Jesus does not care about denominations or liturgy or popes, Jesus cares about His own, individually. He guides the path of life of His sheep. You may join a church, or another church, but you might not like one church of believers over another, but you are still His, regardless of building or denomination.

The schisms between church's are really about Christians leaving non-Christians. I can say this having been an officer in the Methodist Church; I saw it firsthand. One group were bible believing Christians, and the other liberal, "God loves everyone", leaders, who are ignoring biblical values and ordaining gay and women pastors.

In your last paragraph you describe two different types of believers.
So how do we know which type is correct?
How do we know what Jesus expects from us - if anything?
Some believe we don't have to do anything at all.
Some, like myself, believe we have to obey God and live a life of good works/deeds - to the best of our ability, and maybe not even a lot, but to do nothing and require nothing seems to not be correct as I understand salvation.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think that, neither one (Does the church (man) have authority over the Scriptures
OR
Do the Scriptures have authority over the Church?). We have the authority that was given to us, in Jesus Name. Or else I didnt understand the question, lol. In a roundabout way, the word of God has authority over the church, because it tells us what to do and how to live!
And we (the church) are admonished in scripture to not add to it do not take away from it, sh the church has zero authority over the word of God.

God does have a plan for us and it is written down in the bible for us and handy to carry and have with us. Eventually we write the words of the bible upon our heart because we have meditated upon them, and read them, and read them again, and on and on we go. Then it becomes a part of you. And you are taught your purpose as you delve deeper into the Lord.

The church has zero authority over the Word of God.
OK
So is OSAS a correct teaching or not?

 

[Rockerduck]

In your last paragraph you describe two different types of believers.
So how do we know which type is correct?
How do we know what Jesus expects from us - if anything?
Some believe we don't have to do anything at all.
Some, like myself, believe we have to obey God and live a life of good works/deeds - to the best of our ability, and maybe not even a lot, but to do nothing and require nothing seems to not be correct as I understand salvation.

I described your security as Christ's own and Christ's own in a congregational setting. As an ambassador, we have a duty to the assembly of believers. There are not two sets of believers, just your inability to see that.

 

[GodsGrace]

I described your security as Christ's own and Christ's own in a congregational setting. As an ambassador, we have a duty to the assembly of believers. There are not two sets of believers, just your inability to see that.

There are MORE than two sets of believers.
I read about all sorts of beliefs on these boards.
HOW am I supposed to know which belief system is the correct one?
Wouldn't it be nice if ALL PROTESTANTS believed the same doctrine?
I asked @MA2444 which doctrine is correct:
OSAS
or
The possibility of forfeiting our salvation?

If different preachers/teachers stand by either one or the other....
can we be sure that we are correct in our own understanding?

I'm not Catholic, but I've been having problems with Protestantism too for the past
few years.

How to know the truth?

Perhaps THE CHURCH should be declaring what is scripturally correct?

 

[JohnDB]

But there was no agreement on everything yet. There were many books/writings that were thought to be inspired that didn't make the cut, like the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. Even some of the epistles that are part of the New Testament were relatively little known yet. And there was no Bible under one cover yet. This was all accomplished and finalized through the Councils of Rome, Hippo. and Carthage. They also chose the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, then, too. (There were two versions of the Old Testament, one in Greek and one in Hebrew. The canon for the one in Hebrew wasn't set until the late 1st/early 2nd century as a reaction by the Jews who were unhappy about the new Christians converting Jews by using the Old Testament. And even then, they threw out seven books that had previously been there. That accounts for the difference between the Catholic and most (not all) Protestant Bibles today. Protestants switched versions to the Hebrew version that didn't have those seven books.)

Actually the first Old Testament was in Aramaic and had targums (commentaries) to go with it. Which is what was spoken by Jesus often. Sure the linguistics of Hebrew had been mostly restored by the time of Jesus's ministry tour but most people used the Aramaic translation of scriptures because Hebrew was still difficult for most people. Bethgashepher was the name of the elementary school that taught the Torah and MOST but not all children attended which taught the kids Hebrew, mathematics history and etc. Bethmidrash was for advanced students who weren't desperately needed to help produce food for the table. And Hebrew was the preferred language. But most people never made it to this level.

All schools didn't have a strict attendance requirement. But they needed to be proficient in reading and writing for their assignments in their local synagogue.

Gerome, when translating the scriptures into Latin, used the Hebrew and Aramaic translations over the Septuagint to get a more accurate translation out of accurate source documents because the Septuagint was no longer consistent but between the Masoretes, Targums of the Old and Greek copies of the New Testament he was able to produce a solid translation into Latin (language of the day). There was of course lots of opposition to doing so by the usual suspects but he did accomplish this successfully and his naysayers whining about received texts were ignored.

 

[JohnDB]

There are MORE than two sets of believers.
I read about all sorts of beliefs on these boards.
HOW am I supposed to know which belief system is the correct one?
Wouldn't it be nice if ALL PROTESTANTS believed the same doctrine?
I asked @MA2444 which doctrine is correct:
OSAS
or
The possibility of forfeiting our salvation?

If different preachers/teachers stand by either one or the other....
can we be sure that we are correct in our own understanding?

I'm not Catholic, but I've been having problems with Protestantism too for the past
few years.

How to know the truth?

Perhaps THE CHURCH should be declaring what is scripturally correct?

Calvinism is debunked by the story in John about the man born blind. It's a huge part of the Gospel because with this story it tells us why some believe and others do not. The blindness is a metaphor for the reality of salvation.

I believe in the authority of scriptures, not a system, not a formula...just humility.

And the Catholic Church holds to anything "ex-Cathedra" or "out of Peter's chair" to be equal to scripture...if not superior. That's problematic for most Protestants. Nevermind the ones who are now claiming they now have authority over scriptures.

 

[GodsGrace]

Calvinism is debunked by the story in John about the man born blind. It's a huge part of the Gospel because with this story it tells us why some believe and others do not. The blindness is a metaphor for the reality of salvation.

I believe in the authority of scriptures, not a system, not a formula...just humility.

And the Catholic Church holds to anything "ex-Cathedra" or "out of Peter's chair" to be equal to scripture...if not superior. That's problematic for most Protestants. Nevermind the ones who are now claiming they now have authority over scriptures.

The Pope doesn't make up the Catholic doctrine.
This Pope makes many statements...but I can't remember when a Pope spoke ex-cathedra.

But this is not the point I was making.
What I'm saying is that I'm sorry there are so many teachings...they can't all be right.

It seems to me that we have to trust scholars and theologians to a great degree because we can't possibly know what they know.

Speaking of Calvinists,,,,they also don't understand John 6:44-45 the same way we do.
Shouldn't there be one belief system in understanding the NT?

 

[Rockerduck]

There are MORE than two sets of believers.
I read about all sorts of beliefs on these boards.
HOW am I supposed to know which belief system is the correct one?
Wouldn't it be nice if ALL PROTESTANTS believed the same doctrine?
I asked @MA2444 which doctrine is correct:
OSAS
or
The possibility of forfeiting our salvation?

If different preachers/teachers stand by either one or the other....
can we be sure that we are correct in our own understanding?

I'm not Catholic, but I've been having problems with Protestantism too for the past
few years.

How to know the truth?

Perhaps THE CHURCH should be declaring what is scripturally correct?

There is just one type of believer.

Ephesians 4:3-5 - endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Corinthians 12:12-14 - For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.

 

[MA2444]

The church has zero authority over the Word of God.
OK
So is OSAS a correct teaching or not?

OSAS? How is that relevant?

Personally, I like to think that OSAS is true but there sure is a lot of warnings in scripture too. And verses which talk about blot their names out and stuff like that. So I sorta lean away from OSAS in caution. I think there's less chance of OSAS being true as a teaching than there is of it being true.

If that makes sense.

 

[JohnDB]

The Pope doesn't make up the Catholic doctrine.
This Pope makes many statements...but I can't remember when a Pope spoke ex-cathedra.

But this is not the point I was making.
What I'm saying is that I'm sorry there are so many teachings...they can't all be right.

It seems to me that we have to trust scholars and theologians to a great degree because we can't possibly know what they know.

Speaking of Calvinists,,,,they also don't understand John 6:44-45 the same way we do.
Shouldn't there be one belief system in understanding the NT?

Yes!
The "Originalist" viewpoint.
Meaning that the original author had a current audience in mind when he wrote his gospel or letter and we need to understand it from their point of view.

 

[Wick Stick]

So....
Apparently this is a thing.

Does the church (man) have authority over the Scriptures
OR
Do the Scriptures have authority over the Church?

It doesn't matter, because the church is the one that INTERPRETS Scripture, and the interpreting is about 90% of it