Why is the Bible the Final Authority on What is or isn't "Christian"?

[Sunstone]

So far as I know, many Christians (mainly Protestants) view the Bible as the final authority on what is or is not "Christian" -- as opposed to, say, tradition, custom, church teachings, etc. But is there a biblical basis for such a notion? If so what is it?

 

[MohammadPali]

So far as I know, many Christians (mainly Protestants) view the Bible as the final authority on what is or is not "Christian" -- as opposed to, say, tradition, custom, church teachings, etc. But is there a biblical basis for such a notion? If so what is it?

Whos that apostle that rejected most of what the jewish bible taught ?

 

[siti]

Try 2 Timothy 3:16 together with Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 John 1:7-11

 

[MohammadPali]

Try 2 Timothy 3:16 together with Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 John 1:7-11

yet timothy was still circumcised, when paul said christ does not profit from circumcision. Something is going on here.

 

[Skwim]

I know that Catholics don't derive there certainty from the Bible alone. Some of it comes from revealed knowledge imparted through the pope. So I don't think Catholics feel the Bible is the final authority. For protestants, the truth comes through the Bible alone because it's simply the source they've selected. As for the question, "is there a biblical basis for such a notion?" I don't believe there is. I think it's a matter of being the only apple on the tree.
.

 

[siti]

yet timothy was still circumcised, when paul said christ does not profit from circumcision. Something is going on here.

I suspect missing the point is what is going on. The OP asked for the biblical basis of the idea of scripture as the final authority on what is Christian - not whether that authority is unequivocal or consistent.

 

[Onyx]

So far as I know, many Christians (mainly Protestants) view the Bible as the final authority on what is or is not "Christian" -- as opposed to, say, tradition, custom, church teachings, etc. But is there a biblical basis for such a notion? If so what is it?

I don't know, but nobody reads anymore and Bibles make good cook fires.

 

[Skwim]

I suspect missing the point is what is going on. The OP asked for the biblical basis of the idea of scripture as the final authority on what is Christian - not whether that authority is unequivocal or consistent.

Yet none of the scripture you quote suggest that the Bible, a book yet to be assembled when the passages were written, was to be the final authority. All they speak to is the importance of what has been said.

.

 

[siti]

As for the question, "is there a biblical basis for such a notion?" I don't believe there is. I think it's a matter of being the only apple on the tree.

Well that's not true - there have been millions of volumes written about Christianity that are not included in the Bible. And as you have already mentioned Papal authority carries (or at least has carried in the past) as much (if not more) weight than scripture in the Roman Church.

 

[Vaderecta]

So far as I know, many Christians (mainly Protestants) view the Bible as the final authority on what is or is not "Christian" -- as opposed to, say, tradition, custom, church teachings, etc. But is there a biblical basis for such a notion? If so what is it?

I used to ponder what would happen if we changed some the identifiers around... Many humans, mainly americans, view the constitution of the united states as the final authority on what is or not a human.

Sunstone christianity doesn't have a final word. It is many tales told on top a set of documents. Almost all certainly discovered but with a longing that some new scroll will appear to put the coup de grace on all religious beliefs. (I think there is accent thing on that a... à?) In any event this is an evolving story which has enthralled this multi-billion year old planet the last few 1000 years to ponder. Humans like stories. They will probably discuss this idea for as long as they exist. (I'm sure the dinosaurs had a few inside jokes) If the earth was say four billion years old you couldn't even make it through this post before the idea of Christianity has become a forgotten something of consideration for this universe.)

If I could rephrase... Should the incredible hulk 340 be the face of Wolverine forever or should other artist's portrayals like MacFarlane or Liefeld be considered? Is it possible another artist combined with a better story teller be considered a better authority of who wolverine really is because they cared enough to dig in and find out what Logan was about?

 

[Skwim]

Well that's not true - there have been millions of volumes written about Christianity that are not included in the Bible.

Do protestants take any of them as the final authority? No they don't.

And as you have already mentioned Papal authority carries (or at least has carried in the past) as much (if not more) weight than scripture in the Roman Church.

Yup.

.

 

[Skwim]

I used to ponder what would happen if we changed some the identifiers around... Many humans, mainly americans, view the constitution of the united states as the final authority on what is or not a human.

Whoa! Who told you this?

Sunstone christianity doesn't have a final word. It is many tales told on top a set of documents. Almost all certainly discovered but with a longing that some new scroll will appear to put the coup de grace on all religious beliefs. (I think there is accent thing on that a... à?) In any event this is an evolving story which has enthralled this multi-billion year old planet the last few 1000 years to ponder. Humans like stories. They will probably discuss this idea for as long as they exist. (I'm sure the dinosaurs had a few inside jokes) If the earth was say four billion years old you couldn't even make it through this post before the idea of Christianity has become a forgotten something of consideration for this universe.)

Ah, the question was (paraphrased) "Is there a biblical basis for the notion that the Bible is the final authority on what is or is not 'Christian'? If so, what is it?"

.

 

[Vaderecta]

Whoa! Who told you this?

No one told me I just changed his identifiers around maintaining the core issue he has but asking it in a different way.

Ah, the question was (paraphrased) "Is there a biblical basis for the notion that the Bible is the final authority on what is or is not 'Christian'? If so, what is it?"
.

Which bible? You can see the issue with your argument. There is this construction of faith which is being questioned as the authority which is originally a construction. Your may have a position and build a reputation of centuries on knowing what the King James Bible says but which revision and do other versions undermine your authority? Do the commandments act as the final authority on what it means to be 'Moral'?

 

[siti]

Yet none of the scripture you quote suggest that the Bible, a book yet to be assembled when the passages were written, was to be the final authority. All they speak to is the importance of what has been said.

We don't know the "Bible" did not exist when these passages were added to the tradition - we have no sure way of knowing what was or was not considered to be "scripture" when the passage allegedly addressed by the Apostle Paul to Timothy (for example) was penned. The whole point of the Bible "canon" is that it was supposedly closed with the death of the Apostles and no further writings were accepted for inclusion. When they accepted (the phrase) "all scripture" for inclusion as an alleged communication between the Apostle Paul and his young protege Timothy they were clearly working with the assumption that this meant "the entire accepted canon of scripture" which was "God-breathed" and was not to be changed (or challenged). Paul (if he really wrote that phrase at all) might have meant something else, but the "Christians" who put the Bible together and decided what should be in it didn't.

Do protestants take any of them as the final authority? No they don't.

Indeed not. Protestantism is, for the most part, divided on the question only insofar as some think scripture the only authority (sola scriptura) and others think it the final or overriding authority (prima scriptura). Either way, they have rejected any other potential "final authority" - such as personal revelation or scholarly opinion - those "apples" remain untouched as ultimate arbiters of truth. But they are still there.

 

[Super Universe]

So far as I know, many Christians (mainly Protestants) view the Bible as the final authority on what is or is not "Christian" -- as opposed to, say, tradition, custom, church teachings, etc. But is there a biblical basis for such a notion? If so what is it?

Christianity is only what Jesus said, only what He taught. That's it. Anything other than that is not Christianity.

No book of the bible or any other book, or Apostle's speech can over ride what Jesus said.

 

[Enoch07]

So far as I know, many Christians (mainly Protestants) view the Bible as the final authority on what is or is not "Christian" -- as opposed to, say, tradition, custom, church teachings, etc. But is there a biblical basis for such a notion? If so what is it?

Because many traditons are traditions of man and not of the bible.

Christmas, i enjoy Christmas for being family together. But it holds no religious meaning for me.

Easter, another meaningless tradition of man. I'll celebrate passover and give thanks to Jesus. But I will not mess with the easter bunny and egg nonsense.

These are just 2 well known examples I can use. But there are many more, like the Rapture which is also not biblical, the word does not appear in the bible. Hell being filled with demons torturing people also not in the bible. Many many more traditons if men, observed as truth when in fact it is not. It is pollution of the alter.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Easter, another meaningless tradition of man. I'll celebrate passover and give thanks to Jesus. But I will not mess with the easter bunny and egg nonsense.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled bloodbath debate.

 

[Vaderecta]

Christianity is only what Jesus said, only what He taught. That's it. Anything other than that is not Christianity.

No book of the bible or any other book, or Apostle's speech can over ride what Jesus said.

This is a version of assumption which no one should feel comfortable with. This response says of course god is real and that god is the god in which Jesus exists and Christ is his son and even though I know nearly nothing of the 1,000s of other religions that have existed I know they are all false and only this particular religion I know about is true. God also tells tales in very confusing books, commands ancient people who had nothing else to do to bind them and make them holy and therefore jesus is real and anything this person who died said while he was alive can be overridden by any other book because we all know exactly what he said and know it can't be overridden. This is Jesus people!

He snapchatted me earlier and normally I couldn't prove this but now iOS 11 has screen recording so I recorded the video and here it is...

It's not going to happen. No one knows what Jesus said or if Jesus as you know him or her was even around.

 

[sun rise]

To me, there is a difference between being a follower of the Christ and a Christian meaning one who follows religion with extra beliefs and ceremonies, participation in a denomination, attachment to a church and so forth. For example, the Nicene Creed is not in the Bible and there are different versions albeit similar English versions of the Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

 

[Skwim]

We don't know the "Bible" did not exist when these passages were added to the tradition - we have no sure way of knowing what was or was not considered to be "scripture" when the passage allegedly addressed by the Apostle Paul to Timothy (for example) was penned.

Please note that I said "a book yet to be assembled when the passages were written,"

.