• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

It is unbiblical The belief that the Bible is the sole rule of Christian theology

Spiderman

Veteran Member
If you don't trust Church authority why do you trust the Bible?

Church authorities (Catholic Bishops) in the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage decided which books would comprise the New Testament. IF the Church was evil, how can you trust their decision?

The Bible teaches that authoritative Christian teaching comes through the Bible, the Church, and the apostolic "deposit" or Tradition. Catholics agree that every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only indirectly sometimes, and cannot contradict it.

2 Timothy 3: 16 does not teach "Bible Alone," but simply describes the virtues of Holy Scripture. Biblical indications for the Catholic position are quite numerous. When Jesus condemns "tradition", he qualifies His rebuke by referring to corruptions or traditions of men."
The apostle Paul refers positively to a Christian Tradition ("maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" 1 Cor 11:2). He also upholds the authority of oral tradition, referring to "the word of God which you heard from us" 1 Thess 2:13 and "sound words which you have heard from me." 2 Tim 1:13-14. The latter passage is very important because it is located in the context of the 2 Timothy passage that is the most common Protestant proof text against tradition.

Perhaps the clearest Biblical proof of the infallible authority of the Church is the Jerusalem Council, and its authoritative, binding pronouncement Acts 15. Peter made the decision that gentiles who came into the Church did not have to be circumsized or follow certain laws from the law of Moses. This decision that Peter and the Council agreed upon was found nowhere in Scripture. In fact, the Scriptures offered only support for a different decision. This is clear Biblical proof that the Church was able to make decisions that had no Scriptural support. At that time there was no New Testament.

In Matt 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate binding authority (even when they are being rank hypocrites): "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you." The idea of "Moses' seat" cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament, but it appears in the (originally oral) Mishna, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
In 1 Cor 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. In the Old testament, we hear about Moses striking a rock to produce water, but it doesn't say anything about such a miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

Nor did the Jews ever accept Solo Scriptura. Only the skeptical Sadducees rejected Oral Tradition, but they also rejected the future resurrection, the soul, the afterlife, eternal rewards and retribution, and demons and angels.
The nature of authority in the Old Testament times is illustrated by Ezra, a priest and scribe who taught the Jewish Law to Israel. His authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death. Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26

The overwhelming weight of relevant biblical data is opposed to the central Protestant doctrine of Bible Alone, and strongly supports the idea of authoritative tradition. The History of Protestantism and its many doctrinal divisions and some 20,000 denominations strongly argues against the solo-scriptura Doctrine. How could a perspicuous Bible lead so many believers to so many different interpretations.

The Bible is not easy to understand. It's a complex book whose words and ideas have captivated the world's most brilliant minds for millenia. Without an authoritative voice of interpretation --like a Church-- error and division are inevitable.

Such division began right at the beginning of Protestantism. Martin Luther had different beliefs than Huldreich Zwingli about the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther were divided about Baptism. There are today five major competing Doctrines of Baptism.


2 Peter 3:15-17 "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ingorant and unstable twist to their destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
Division is not of God, yet the Solo Scriptura Doctrine brought division to Christianity that had not been there previously.
Martin Luther did not reform the Church, he splittered it into many different pieces, which is unbiblical. God wills that we be unified in faith. Our Lord Jesus prayed in John 17:22, "that they may be one even as we are one." Acts 4:32 informs us that the earliest Christians were "of one heart and soul." St. Paul taught that "there is one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism," Eph 4:4-5, and that Christians were to "stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel," Phil 1:27, and to be "in full accord and of one mind".Phil2:2

St. Peter urges us to have "unity of spirit." 1 Pet 3:8 Denominationalism and doctrinal relativism are roundly condemned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 1:10-13 "all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement...each one of you says, I belong to Paul, or I belong to Apollos, or I belong to Cephas, or I belong to Christ. Is Christ divided?"
Only an authoritative Church, commissioned by Christ to teach His truth and protected by the Holy Spirit from doctrinal error, can preserve individual Christians from the dissensions caused by their own flawed interpretations.

Diary -
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
If you don't trust Church authority why do you trust the Bible?

Church authorities (Catholic Bishops) in the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage decided which books would comprise the New Testament. IF the Church was evil, how can you trust their decision?

The Bible teaches that authoritative Christian teaching comes through the Bible, the Church, and the apostolic "deposit" or Tradition. Catholics agree that every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only indirectly sometimes, and cannot contradict it.

2 Timothy 3: 16 does not teach "Bible Alone," but simply describes the virtues of Holy Scripture. Biblical indications for the Catholic position are quite numerous. When Jesus condemns "tradition", he qualifies His rebuke by referring to corruptions or traditions of men."
The apostle Paul refers positively to a Christian Tradition ("maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" 1 Cor 11:2). He also upholds the authority of oral tradition, referring to "the word of God which you heard from us" 1 Thess 2:13 and "sound words which you have heard from me." 2 Tim 1:13-14. The latter passage is very important because it is located in the context of the 2 Timothy passage that is the most common Protestant proof text against tradition.

Perhaps the clearest Biblical proof of the infallible authority of the Church is the Jerusalem Council, and its authoritative, binding pronouncement Acts 15. Peter made the decision that gentiles who came into the Church did not have to be circumsized or follow certain laws from the law of Moses. This decision that Peter and the Council agreed upon was found nowhere in Scripture. In fact, the Scriptures offered only support for a different decision. This is clear Biblical proof that the Church was able to make decisions that had no Scriptural support. At that time there was no New Testament.

In Matt 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate binding authority (even when they are being rank hypocrites): "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you." The idea of "Moses' seat" cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament, but it appears in the (originally oral) Mishna, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
In 1 Cor 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. In the Old testament, we hear about Moses striking a rock to produce water, but it doesn't say anything about such a miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

Nor did the Jews ever accept Solo Scriptura. Only the skeptical Sadducees rejected Oral Tradition, but they also rejected the future resurrection, the soul, the afterlife, eternal rewards and retribution, and demons and angels.
The nature of authority in the Old Testament times is illustrated by Ezra, a priest and scribe who taught the Jewish Law to Israel. His authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death. Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26

The overwhelming weight of relevant biblical data is opposed to the central Protestant doctrine of Bible Alone, and strongly supports the idea of authoritative tradition. The History of Protestantism and its many doctrinal divisions and some 20,000 denominations strongly argues against the solo-scriptura Doctrine. How could a perspicuous Bible lead so many believers to so many different interpretations.

The Bible is not easy to understand. It's a complex book whose words and ideas have captivated the world's most brilliant minds for millenia. Without an authoritative voice of interpretation --like a Church-- error and division are inevitable.

Such division began right at the beginning of Protestantism. Martin Luther had different beliefs than Huldreich Zwingli about the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther were divided about Baptism. There are today five major competing Doctrines of Baptism.


2 Peter 3:15-17 "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ingorant and unstable twist to their destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
Division is not of God, yet the Solo Scriptura Doctrine brought division to Christianity that had not been there previously.
Martin Luther did not reform the Church, he splittered it into many different pieces, which is unbiblical. God wills that we be unified in faith. Our Lord Jesus prayed in John 17:22, "that they may be one even as we are one." Acts 4:32 informs us that the earliest Christians were "of one heart and soul." St. Paul taught that "there is one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism," Eph 4:4-5, and that Christians were to "stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel," Phil 1:27, and to be "in full accord and of one mind".Phil2:2

St. Peter urges us to have "unity of spirit." 1 Pet 3:8 Denominationalism and doctrinal relativism are roundly condemned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 1:10-13 "all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement...each one of you says, I belong to Paul, or I belong to Apollos, or I belong to Cephas, or I belong to Christ. Is Christ divided?"
Only an authoritative Church, commissioned by Christ to teach His truth and protected by the Holy Spirit from doctrinal error, can preserve individual Christians from the dissensions caused by their own flawed interpretations.

Diary -

Dear Mat,
You are right in your assertion that the bible, canonized by the church, is suspect. The church and the bible are both flawed. The flaw best described by Yeshua in his parable of the seeds of tares and the good seed. The message of the evil one is mixed with that of the "son of man". According to the parable, after the seeds become mature, the tares will be ripped out of the ground and burned.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I tell you, if I believed in God the way Christians do, I'd probably go back to the Church just from reading this. Very nicely put together.

Have to think some more if I have any comments.

If you don't trust Church authority why do you trust the Bible?

Church authorities (Catholic Bishops) in the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage decided which books would comprise the New Testament. IF the Church was evil, how can you trust their decision?

The Bible teaches that authoritative Christian teaching comes through the Bible, the Church, and the apostolic "deposit" or Tradition. Catholics agree that every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only indirectly sometimes, and cannot contradict it.

2 Timothy 3: 16 does not teach "Bible Alone," but simply describes the virtues of Holy Scripture. Biblical indications for the Catholic position are quite numerous. When Jesus condemns "tradition", he qualifies His rebuke by referring to corruptions or traditions of men."
The apostle Paul refers positively to a Christian Tradition ("maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" 1 Cor 11:2). He also upholds the authority of oral tradition, referring to "the word of God which you heard from us" 1 Thess 2:13 and "sound words which you have heard from me." 2 Tim 1:13-14. The latter passage is very important because it is located in the context of the 2 Timothy passage that is the most common Protestant proof text against tradition.

Perhaps the clearest Biblical proof of the infallible authority of the Church is the Jerusalem Council, and its authoritative, binding pronouncement Acts 15. Peter made the decision that gentiles who came into the Church did not have to be circumsized or follow certain laws from the law of Moses. This decision that Peter and the Council agreed upon was found nowhere in Scripture. In fact, the Scriptures offered only support for a different decision. This is clear Biblical proof that the Church was able to make decisions that had no Scriptural support. At that time there was no New Testament.

In Matt 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate binding authority (even when they are being rank hypocrites): "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you." The idea of "Moses' seat" cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament, but it appears in the (originally oral) Mishna, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
In 1 Cor 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. In the Old testament, we hear about Moses striking a rock to produce water, but it doesn't say anything about such a miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

Nor did the Jews ever accept Solo Scriptura. Only the skeptical Sadducees rejected Oral Tradition, but they also rejected the future resurrection, the soul, the afterlife, eternal rewards and retribution, and demons and angels.
The nature of authority in the Old Testament times is illustrated by Ezra, a priest and scribe who taught the Jewish Law to Israel. His authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death. Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26

The overwhelming weight of relevant biblical data is opposed to the central Protestant doctrine of Bible Alone, and strongly supports the idea of authoritative tradition. The History of Protestantism and its many doctrinal divisions and some 20,000 denominations strongly argues against the solo-scriptura Doctrine. How could a perspicuous Bible lead so many believers to so many different interpretations.

The Bible is not easy to understand. It's a complex book whose words and ideas have captivated the world's most brilliant minds for millenia. Without an authoritative voice of interpretation --like a Church-- error and division are inevitable.

Such division began right at the beginning of Protestantism. Martin Luther had different beliefs than Huldreich Zwingli about the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther were divided about Baptism. There are today five major competing Doctrines of Baptism.


2 Peter 3:15-17 "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ingorant and unstable twist to their destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
Division is not of God, yet the Solo Scriptura Doctrine brought division to Christianity that had not been there previously.
Martin Luther did not reform the Church, he splittered it into many different pieces, which is unbiblical. God wills that we be unified in faith. Our Lord Jesus prayed in John 17:22, "that they may be one even as we are one." Acts 4:32 informs us that the earliest Christians were "of one heart and soul." St. Paul taught that "there is one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism," Eph 4:4-5, and that Christians were to "stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel," Phil 1:27, and to be "in full accord and of one mind".Phil2:2

St. Peter urges us to have "unity of spirit." 1 Pet 3:8 Denominationalism and doctrinal relativism are roundly condemned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 1:10-13 "all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement...each one of you says, I belong to Paul, or I belong to Apollos, or I belong to Cephas, or I belong to Christ. Is Christ divided?"
Only an authoritative Church, commissioned by Christ to teach His truth and protected by the Holy Spirit from doctrinal error, can preserve individual Christians from the dissensions caused by their own flawed interpretations.

Diary -
 

Thana

Lady
If you don't trust Church authority why do you trust the Bible?

Church authorities (Catholic Bishops) in the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage decided which books would comprise the New Testament. IF the Church was evil, how can you trust their decision?

The Bible teaches that authoritative Christian teaching comes through the Bible, the Church, and the apostolic "deposit" or Tradition. Catholics agree that every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only indirectly sometimes, and cannot contradict it.

2 Timothy 3: 16 does not teach "Bible Alone," but simply describes the virtues of Holy Scripture. Biblical indications for the Catholic position are quite numerous. When Jesus condemns "tradition", he qualifies His rebuke by referring to corruptions or traditions of men."
The apostle Paul refers positively to a Christian Tradition ("maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" 1 Cor 11:2). He also upholds the authority of oral tradition, referring to "the word of God which you heard from us" 1 Thess 2:13 and "sound words which you have heard from me." 2 Tim 1:13-14. The latter passage is very important because it is located in the context of the 2 Timothy passage that is the most common Protestant proof text against tradition.

Perhaps the clearest Biblical proof of the infallible authority of the Church is the Jerusalem Council, and its authoritative, binding pronouncement Acts 15. Peter made the decision that gentiles who came into the Church did not have to be circumsized or follow certain laws from the law of Moses. This decision that Peter and the Council agreed upon was found nowhere in Scripture. In fact, the Scriptures offered only support for a different decision. This is clear Biblical proof that the Church was able to make decisions that had no Scriptural support. At that time there was no New Testament.

In Matt 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate binding authority (even when they are being rank hypocrites): "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you." The idea of "Moses' seat" cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament, but it appears in the (originally oral) Mishna, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
In 1 Cor 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. In the Old testament, we hear about Moses striking a rock to produce water, but it doesn't say anything about such a miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

Nor did the Jews ever accept Solo Scriptura. Only the skeptical Sadducees rejected Oral Tradition, but they also rejected the future resurrection, the soul, the afterlife, eternal rewards and retribution, and demons and angels.
The nature of authority in the Old Testament times is illustrated by Ezra, a priest and scribe who taught the Jewish Law to Israel. His authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death. Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26

The overwhelming weight of relevant biblical data is opposed to the central Protestant doctrine of Bible Alone, and strongly supports the idea of authoritative tradition. The History of Protestantism and its many doctrinal divisions and some 20,000 denominations strongly argues against the solo-scriptura Doctrine. How could a perspicuous Bible lead so many believers to so many different interpretations.

The Bible is not easy to understand. It's a complex book whose words and ideas have captivated the world's most brilliant minds for millenia. Without an authoritative voice of interpretation --like a Church-- error and division are inevitable.

Such division began right at the beginning of Protestantism. Martin Luther had different beliefs than Huldreich Zwingli about the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther were divided about Baptism. There are today five major competing Doctrines of Baptism.


2 Peter 3:15-17 "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ingorant and unstable twist to their destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
Division is not of God, yet the Solo Scriptura Doctrine brought division to Christianity that had not been there previously.
Martin Luther did not reform the Church, he splittered it into many different pieces, which is unbiblical. God wills that we be unified in faith. Our Lord Jesus prayed in John 17:22, "that they may be one even as we are one." Acts 4:32 informs us that the earliest Christians were "of one heart and soul." St. Paul taught that "there is one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism," Eph 4:4-5, and that Christians were to "stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel," Phil 1:27, and to be "in full accord and of one mind".Phil2:2

St. Peter urges us to have "unity of spirit." 1 Pet 3:8 Denominationalism and doctrinal relativism are roundly condemned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 1:10-13 "all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement...each one of you says, I belong to Paul, or I belong to Apollos, or I belong to Cephas, or I belong to Christ. Is Christ divided?"
Only an authoritative Church, commissioned by Christ to teach His truth and protected by the Holy Spirit from doctrinal error, can preserve individual Christians from the dissensions caused by their own flawed interpretations.

Diary -

Yes, I'm sure you're right. We protestants should probably just all go back to the church that once burned us alive as heretics because we wanted to read the bible and think for ourselves instead of being told what to think ;)

The church canonized the NT based on it's validity which was thoroughly studied by scholars. I trust that throughout all these years and all the people (Catholic, protestant and Jewish) who have studied and researched the bible, That my bible is as good and accurate as it ever can be. Besides, The Catholics do have different Gospels in their bible that Protestants do not.

And as to denominational dissension, I'm non-denominational so I've really got no worries on that front. And since I believe that all Christians are all wrong, including myself, I don't believe any one can ever have a monopoly on the truth, Protestant or Catholic or not. So it really doesn't matter what denomination you are, The only thing that matters is your relationship with God.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Yes, I'm sure you're right. We protestants should probably just all go back to the church that once burned us alive as heretics because we wanted to read the bible and think for ourselves instead of being told what to think

You gotta point. Though, there are more books (or less books in the protestant bible) in the Catholic Bible OT. All four gospels are in both Bibles, though.
 

Thana

Lady
"The Catholics do have different Gospels in their bible that Protestants do not."

No they don't

Yes, they do.

"The difference is that the Catholics include the Pseudepigraphal books (seven books) that were written after the last Old Testament prophet and before John the Baptist. So they don't deal with Christ nor any prophecy about Christ. There were no prophets during the time of these books, so the Jews never regarded them as inspired. Protestants believe the same about these books. Catholics accept them because in one verse it confirms their belief about praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:46). Jews and Protestants don't believe in praying for the dead."
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Wait. I have to stop and ask.. you mean all the Masses I went to and the Gospel they read from were not about Christ (Jesus wasn't in the books they read from)? No prophecies about Christ coming back in the Catholic Bible? I'm missing something.
Yes, they do.
"So they don't deal with Christ nor any prophecy about Christ.
There were no prophets during the time of these books, so the Jews never regarded them as inspired.
What do you mean they don't deal with Christ?
Protestants believe the same about these books. Catholics accept them because in one verse it confirms their belief about praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:46). Jews and Protestants don't believe in praying for the dead."
Catholics accept the gospel only because of the scripture about praying to the dead?

/scratches her head in honest confusion/
 

Thana

Lady
Wait. I have to stop and ask.. you mean all the Masses I went to and the Gospel they read from were not about Christ (Jesus wasn't in the books they read from)? No prophecies about Christ coming back in the Catholic Bible? I'm missing something.

What do you mean they don't deal with Christ?

Catholics accept the gospel only because of the scripture about praying to the dead?

/scratches her had in honest confusion/

Lol, It wasn't about the entire bible what I quoted was just about the 7 books included in the Catholic bible but excluded from the Protestant bibles.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Yes, they do.

"The difference is that the Catholics include the Pseudepigraphal books (seven books) that were written after the last Old Testament prophet and before John the Baptist. So they don't deal with Christ nor any prophecy about Christ. There were no prophets during the time of these books, so the Jews never regarded them as inspired. Protestants believe the same about these books. Catholics accept them because in one verse it confirms their belief about praying for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:46). Jews and Protestants don't believe in praying for the dead."
The Protestants took out those books, because Luther copied the Jewish canon of Scripture, assuming that the Jewish Masoretic Text would be older than the Greek Septuagint. He was wrong. The Apostles quoted the Septuagint, which includes the extra books that the Protestants removed. The Church from the earliest centuries always used the Septuagint, and almost never the Hebrew.

In fact, the reason the Jews stopped using the Septuagint was because the Christians were using the Septuagint to prove the Divinity and Messiahship of Christ, and the extra books helped them do just that. And after the rise of Christianity, the Jews made their own canon of Scripture to shut out the Christians and end all debate on the matter. The Masoretic Text dates back only to the Medieval times, when vowel markings were added to eliminate alternate readings and ensure that the Tanakh could only be read one way, further trying to eliminate any possibility that the prophecies about the Messiah could be read in a pro-Christian fashion.
 

Thana

Lady
The Protestants took out those books, because Luther copied the Jewish canon of Scripture, assuming that the Jewish Masoretic Text would be older than the Greek Septuagint. He was wrong. The Apostles quoted the Septuagint, which includes the extra books that the Protestants removed. The Church from the earliest centuries always used the Septuagint, and almost never the Hebrew.

In fact, the reason the Jews stopped using the Septuagint was because the Christians were using the Septuagint to prove the Divinity and Messiahship of Christ, and the extra books helped them do just that. And after the rise of Christianity, the Jews made their own canon of Scripture to shut out the Christians and end all debate on the matter. The Masoretic Text dates back only to the Medieval times, when vowel markings were added to eliminate alternate readings and ensure that the Tanakh could only be read one way, further trying to eliminate any possibility that the prophecies about the Messiah could be read in a pro-Christian fashion.

Luther didn't omit the books so I'm not sure what you're going on about?
It wasn't until about the 18th-19th century that they were omitted completely.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Perhaps the clearest Biblical proof of the infallible authority of the Church is the Jerusalem Council, and its authoritative, binding pronouncement Acts 15. Peter made the decision that gentiles who came into the Church did not have to be circumsized or follow certain laws from the law of Moses. This decision that Peter and the Council agreed upon was found nowhere in Scripture. In fact, the Scriptures offered only support for a different decision. This is clear Biblical proof that the Church was able to make decisions that had no Scriptural support. At that time there was no New Testament.

"Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, 25 we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
(Acts 15:22-29 NRSVCE)

Actually it was not just Peter, but a unanimous decision made by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. It was agreed upon using the scriptures they knew, prayer to their God and guidance from his holy spirit. What was agreed upon was included in the Christian scriptures, which we are reading today....so we still have scripture to direct all our decisions and conduct.

It is the stuff that is outside of scripture that is the worry.

Paul wrote to Timothy...."Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. 3 They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."

It is these kinds of things that we were to watch out for. Ones who try to impose things that the Bible does not restrict. Forbidding to marry and abstaining from certain foods seems relevant.

The "essential" things that were mentioned were "that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication".
So as long as the gentiles followed this recommendation, not being raised with the law of God on food sexual impropriety and consuming blood, no further restrictions were imposed.
 

katiemygirl

CHRISTIAN
If you don't trust Church authority why do you trust the Bible?

Church authorities (Catholic Bishops) in the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage decided which books would comprise the New Testament. IF the Church was evil, how can you trust their decision?

The Bible teaches that authoritative Christian teaching comes through the Bible, the Church, and the apostolic "deposit" or Tradition. Catholics agree that every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only indirectly sometimes, and cannot contradict it.

2 Timothy 3: 16 does not teach "Bible Alone," but simply describes the virtues of Holy Scripture. Biblical indications for the Catholic position are quite numerous. When Jesus condemns "tradition", he qualifies His rebuke by referring to corruptions or traditions of men."
The apostle Paul refers positively to a Christian Tradition ("maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" 1 Cor 11:2). He also upholds the authority of oral tradition, referring to "the word of God which you heard from us" 1 Thess 2:13 and "sound words which you have heard from me." 2 Tim 1:13-14. The latter passage is very important because it is located in the context of the 2 Timothy passage that is the most common Protestant proof text against tradition.

Perhaps the clearest Biblical proof of the infallible authority of the Church is the Jerusalem Council, and its authoritative, binding pronouncement Acts 15. Peter made the decision that gentiles who came into the Church did not have to be circumsized or follow certain laws from the law of Moses. This decision that Peter and the Council agreed upon was found nowhere in Scripture. In fact, the Scriptures offered only support for a different decision. This is clear Biblical proof that the Church was able to make decisions that had no Scriptural support. At that time there was no New Testament.

In Matt 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate binding authority (even when they are being rank hypocrites): "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you." The idea of "Moses' seat" cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament, but it appears in the (originally oral) Mishna, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
In 1 Cor 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. In the Old testament, we hear about Moses striking a rock to produce water, but it doesn't say anything about such a miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

Nor did the Jews ever accept Solo Scriptura. Only the skeptical Sadducees rejected Oral Tradition, but they also rejected the future resurrection, the soul, the afterlife, eternal rewards and retribution, and demons and angels.
The nature of authority in the Old Testament times is illustrated by Ezra, a priest and scribe who taught the Jewish Law to Israel. His authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death. Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26

The overwhelming weight of relevant biblical data is opposed to the central Protestant doctrine of Bible Alone, and strongly supports the idea of authoritative tradition. The History of Protestantism and its many doctrinal divisions and some 20,000 denominations strongly argues against the solo-scriptura Doctrine. How could a perspicuous Bible lead so many believers to so many different interpretations.

The Bible is not easy to understand. It's a complex book whose words and ideas have captivated the world's most brilliant minds for millenia. Without an authoritative voice of interpretation --like a Church-- error and division are inevitable.

Such division began right at the beginning of Protestantism. Martin Luther had different beliefs than Huldreich Zwingli about the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Calvin, Zwingli, and Luther were divided about Baptism. There are today five major competing Doctrines of Baptism.


2 Peter 3:15-17 "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ingorant and unstable twist to their destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
Division is not of God, yet the Solo Scriptura Doctrine brought division to Christianity that had not been there previously.
Martin Luther did not reform the Church, he splittered it into many different pieces, which is unbiblical. God wills that we be unified in faith. Our Lord Jesus prayed in John 17:22, "that they may be one even as we are one." Acts 4:32 informs us that the earliest Christians were "of one heart and soul." St. Paul taught that "there is one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism," Eph 4:4-5, and that Christians were to "stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel," Phil 1:27, and to be "in full accord and of one mind".Phil2:2

St. Peter urges us to have "unity of spirit." 1 Pet 3:8 Denominationalism and doctrinal relativism are roundly condemned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 1:10-13 "all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement...each one of you says, I belong to Paul, or I belong to Apollos, or I belong to Cephas, or I belong to Christ. Is Christ divided?"
Only an authoritative Church, commissioned by Christ to teach His truth and protected by the Holy Spirit from doctrinal error, can preserve individual Christians from the dissensions caused by their own flawed interpretations.

Diary -
There is only ONE source of truth, and it is GOD. The Bible is His inspired word. Anything outside of His word are the words of men. There are no inspired men today, nor has there been since the last apostle died.

When I was searching for the one true church, which Jesus purchased with His own blood, I tested many denominations' teachings by measuring them against the church I was reading about in the New Testament. I knew when I found one whose teachings and practices lined up with the NT church, I would have found the Lord's church.

The catholic church is far removed from the NT church in its teachings and practices. They do not rely solely on the word of God. They are not the Lord's church.
 
Top