• 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!

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

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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?

soli fide soli scriptura by Martin Luther around 1517 with his 95 theses nailed to the wittenberg door if I remember correctly. That is the source of this idea simple as that. This isn't debatable just facts. It's basic theology 101 BTW so it is taught.
 
Last edited:

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.
None its luther
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
We still don't know that - but anyway, that's irrelevant to the question of whether there is "a Biblical basis" for belief in the final authority of scripture. Of course there is and of course that's what the people who "assembled" the Bible meant it to be. Its irrelevant to the question whether that's what the original writers believed because they weren't writing Bibles, they were writing letters to fellow believers - whether or not they truly believed in their own divine inspiration is impossible to know - but it is pretty clear that the people who stitched the letters and gospels together into the first Biblical codexes that roughly resemble the Bible we know today (about the 4th century) meant it to be an authoritative encapsulation of God's revelation to humankind. Anything that contradicted or went beyond it was not from God - and the scriptures I cited earlier were included to establish that notion. According to the Bible, a Christian must adhere to Bible principles first and foremost. God's word is the last word and unquestionably the final authority. Of course I don't believe that (at all) - and neither does the Pope - but I am convinced that was what the bible was originally meant (by a group of ancient Bishops) to be. So if you want to be a "Christian" (which I don't) you gotta believe that the Bible provides the rules of membership.
It's Luther
 

siti

Well-Known Member
It's Luther
Nope - that's sola scriptura i.e. scripture as the only authority. Most of the rest of the protestant movement opted for prima scriptura i.e. scripture as the primary authority but not necessarily the only one. But from early times the Church referred to the Bible - i.e. the canon of Christian scriptures - as "sacred", "divine" and "holy" scripture. I still think its pretty clear that the various 2nd - 5th century cataloguers intended the particular books they selected to be taken as "God's written word" and this is more or less confirmed by the fact that almost without exception, the books that were included were those which were accepted to be of prophetic or apostolic origin or that were confirmed by being referred to by the prophets or apostles - or Jesus of course.

Anyway, that was not the question - the question was about Biblical verses that provide support for the idea of the final authority of the Bible. I gave a few and there are numerous others in both old and new testaments where the words are claimed to be of divine origin as humans "spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" - 2 Peter 1:21 and others that affirm the lasting authority of those words: "heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away" - Matthew 24:35 (for example). Its pretty clear to me that whoever wrote these words down intended them to carry the weight of divine authority in the minds of their readers. (of course that's not the same thing as actually carrying such divine authority - but that also was not the question).

The history of the development of the Bible canon and the criteria that were used to select what was in and what was out is a big subject and there is plenty of information to be read on the internet (including translations of records of some of the Church Councils that deliberated on the matter). People can look this up for themselves and make up their own minds whether they think Irenaeus, Augustine, Eusebius, Athanasius and the rest thought they were cataloguing God's authoritative and authentic word or just providing a reading list for Church members. By 1536 the Church of England at least definitely affirmed the binding authority of the Bible in the first of its ten articles of faith: "First, As touching the chief and principal articles of our faith,...that all bishops and preachers...ought and must most constantly believe and defend all those things to be true which be comprehended in the whole body of the Bible...that they must repute, hold and take all the same things [i.e. the Bible and the creeds] for the most holy, most sure and most certain and infallible words of God...and...neither ought nor can be altered...by any contrary opinion or authority".

That is definitely as far as I want to go with this - as I said, you can look up the history if you really want to know.
 
Last edited:

12jtartar

Active Member
Premium Member
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?

Sunstone,
Most things come down to this; God had His word written down, and promised to protect His word from every generation, Psalms 12:6;7. The Bible tells us to put our trust in God, meaning what is written in the Bible, Proverbs 3:5,6. God says not to trust in men because no Salvation is in men, Psalms 146:3,4. In fact, Cursed is the man who trusts in men, Jeremiah 17:5, but blessed is the man who puts his trust in Jehovah God, Jeremiah 17:7. We are told not to put trust in our heart, because it can lead us wrong, Jeremiah 17:9,10, Proverbs 28:26.
We know that men come to different conclusions about things, depending on their education, even books that are written are obsolete before the get to the book shelves. Depending on a persons position, he sees things differently, because men think one subject is more important, at least to them. Peoples opinions change constantly, and no person can be expected to have a perfect memory, so passing on knowledge about God’s purposes, cannot be left to men to transmit God’s word accurately, down through the generations.
Jesus answered the question about traditions at Matthew 15:1-20, 18-20, Mark 7:7,8.
A very important point to remember, we are going to be judged by what the Bible says. Would you want to be judged by man’s memory about what God said, or by what He says, in His word, the Bible, Isaiah 40:8, 2Timothy 3:16:17, 2Peter 1:20,21, 1Peter 1:25. Even in the first century, many of the things taught by the Pharisees were traditions of men, not what was written in the Bible. Jesus was under obligation to obey the Bible, not men! Just as we are!!!
 

12jtartar

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

.

Skwim,
One thing you seem to be forgetting. All of the Scriptures were inspired by God, so all Scripture is accurate, 2Timothy, 3:16,17, 2Peter 1:20,21. Jesus even said, Your word is truth!! John 17:17.
Paul knew what he was talking about, he wrote 14 oh the book of The Christian Greek Scriptures. Paul knew more about Christianity than all the apostles combined, for Paul received what he knew, by revelation from Jesus Christ, Galatians 1:11,12.
The Apostles were the accepted Authority on Christianity, by all Christians, in the first century, John 14:26, Acts 2:36-43.
It was shortly after the death of John the last living apostle, that false teachings and more traditions of men started to be accepted into Christianity, therefore audulterating True Christianity. A revival of True Christianity has come forth in these Last Days!!!
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Nope - that's sola scriptura i.e. scripture as the only authority. Most of the rest of the protestant movement opted for prima scriptura i.e. scripture as the primary authority but not necessarily the only one. But from early times the Church referred to the Bible - i.e. the canon of Christian scriptures - as "sacred", "divine" and "holy" scripture. I still think its pretty clear that the various 2nd - 5th century cataloguers intended the particular books they selected to be taken as "God's written word" and this is more or less confirmed by the fact that almost without exception, the books that were included were those which were accepted to be of prophetic or apostolic origin or that were confirmed by being referred to by the prophets or apostles - or Jesus of course.

Anyway, that was not the question - the question was about Biblical verses that provide support for the idea of the final authority of the Bible. I gave a few and there are numerous others in both old and new testaments where the words are claimed to be of divine origin as humans "spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" - 2 Peter 1:21 and others that affirm the lasting authority of those words: "heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away" - Matthew 24:35 (for example). Its pretty clear to me that whoever wrote these words down intended them to carry the weight of divine authority in the minds of their readers. (of course that's not the same thing as actually carrying such divine authority - but that also was not the question).

The history of the development of the Bible canon and the criteria that were used to select what was in and what was out is a big subject and there is plenty of information to be read on the internet (including translations of records of some of the Church Councils that deliberated on the matter). People can look this up for themselves and make up their own minds whether they think Irenaeus, Augustine, Eusebius, Athanasius and the rest thought they were cataloguing God's authoritative and authentic word or just providing a reading list for Church members. By 1536 the Church of England at least definitely affirmed the binding authority of the Bible in the first of its ten articles of faith: "First, As touching the chief and principal articles of our faith,...that all bishops and preachers...ought and must most constantly believe and defend all those things to be true which be comprehended in the whole body of the Bible...that they must repute, hold and take all the same things [i.e. the Bible and the creeds] for the most holy, most sure and most certain and infallible words of God...and...neither ought nor can be altered...by any contrary opinion or authority".

That is definitely as far as I want to go with this - as I said, you can look up the history if you really want to know.
That's not the question at all. He asked how did the delusion which is generally American protestant evangelical in particular develop. If it's not a cult please explain how one derstands God without the Bible? No in_cult_urized church member can talk about God without the bible Inpossible they can't. For them objectivity starts in a book and in their brain. Hell that's truth at the University level. Ha. Cult. So the university plays a major role in Christianities lameheadedness as it exists today.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
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?
Well, since the Bible neither defines the word "Christian," or claims itself that it's the final authority on anything, I'd say, "Absolutely not."
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
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 the Original revelation given to the apostles is the only message God guaranteed to be free from error. At least that is what grounds the NT. If you read the great Chicago statement of faith it gives a very detailed response to your question.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Because the Original revelation given to the apostles is the only message God guaranteed to be free from error.
No it isn't. Nowhere in the New Testament does God guarantee that it's the only message He guaranteed to be free from error.
 

Vaderecta

Active Member
History will tell me a lot about Einstein? It would also tell me a lot about Moses but you claimed Moses never existed so what history am I to believe?

Don't we actually have Einstein's brain? I don't have it but to be sure I need to check the house, never know when those things might sneak inside.

Growing up religious was a great experience for you? But something happened to turn you against it. Great, so we have another atheist who didn't get the toy you wanted one Christmas so you turned against God.

I didn't turn against religion or god. I just don't think either exist anymore. (for me, lots of people still have a religion and believe in some kind of god) I'm not mad or upset with people that believe in god. (Is that even a thing?) We as humans have Einstein's brain not like you and me. That would be really weird if we kept brains around the house. And Moses might have existed dude. I'm not discounting Moses, Jesus or Skrillex. They might all be real people.

One thing... I think you said this twice but you keep bringing up a toy someone didn't get and they then turned against god. What is that about? I grew up as a Jehovah Witness and we didn't celebrate christmas or birthday parties and I think I am missing some core idea you are trying to express that maybe I don't connect with because I didn't have the same holidays or expectations as a kid that maybe you had.

In any event I think you should be free to believe in tooth fairy, jesus, santa, ghosts, ufos or whatever but you should be free to not believe in any of those things. No one knows what Jesus said or if Jesus as you know him or her was even around. Humans have Einsteins brain, pictures and many other tangible evidence that we simply don't have for Jesus. Maybe the son of god should have been better documented but pivoting on the info we have I wouldn't discount his existence but it's much more plausible that Einstein was around.
 
Last edited:

Super Universe

Defender of God
I didn't turn against religion or god. I just don't think either exist anymore. (for me, lots of people still have a religion and believe in some kind of god) I'm not mad or upset with people that believe in god. (Is that even a thing?) We as humans have Einstein's brain not like you and me. That would be really weird if we kept brains around the house. And Moses might have existed dude. I'm not discounting Moses, Jesus or Skrillex. They might all be real people.

One thing... I think you said this twice but you keep bringing up a toy someone didn't get and they then turned against god. What is that about? I grew up as a Jehovah Witness and we didn't celebrate christmas or birthday parties and I think I am missing some core idea you are trying to express that maybe I don't connect with because I didn't have the same holidays or expectations as a kid that maybe you had.

In any event I think you should be free to believe in tooth fairy, jesus, santa, ghosts, ufos or whatever but you should be free to not believe in any of those things. No one knows what Jesus said or if Jesus as you know him or her was even around. Humans have Einsteins brain, pictures and many other tangible evidence that we simply don't have for Jesus. Maybe the son of god should have been better documented but pivoting on the info we have I wouldn't discount his existence but it's much more plausible that Einstein was around.

You grew up a JW? Well now, it all makes sense. So did I.

The toy reference means this: atheists didn't get the life they wanted so they are upset and have to blame something. Many of them are homosexuals and turn against religion because it says homosexuality is wrong. Some people are just grown up babies who never matured and they are really upset that their parents were abusive or alcoholics or whatever and so these people blame the religion or God that allowed their parents to be imperfect. So, to me, I don't care what you've been through. Whatever it was, I went through the same thing.

God created the universe and gave it life. He didn't do it so you could be rich, or get all the toys you really wanted as a child. You got a life and a chance to earn heaven. If that's not enough for you then nothing will ever be enough.

No one knows what Jesus said? Sure they do. You can look it up free online or get a book that has it all written down.

You don't determine what we can believe in or not believe in.
 

Vaderecta

Active Member
You grew up a JW? Well now, it all makes sense. So did I.

The toy reference means this: atheists didn't get the life they wanted so they are upset and have to blame something. Many of them are homosexuals and turn against religion because it says homosexuality is wrong. Some people are just grown up babies who never matured and they are really upset that their parents were abusive or alcoholics or whatever and so these people blame the religion or God that allowed their parents to be imperfect. So, to me, I don't care what you've been through. Whatever it was, I went through the same thing.

God created the universe and gave it life. He didn't do it so you could be rich, or get all the toys you really wanted as a child. You got a life and a chance to earn heaven. If that's not enough for you then nothing will ever be enough.

No one knows what Jesus said? Sure they do. You can look it up free online or get a book that has it all written down.

You don't determine what we can believe in or not believe in.

Many of the atheists are homosexuals? What does many mean to you? I have no problem with someone assigning me the label of atheist but I identify more as an agnostic.

You got a chance to earn heaven? Afterlife beliefs are driving your living goals? Like 40 virgins?
 

Vaderecta

Active Member
Well, since the Bible neither defines the word "Christian," or claims itself that it's the final authority on anything, I'd say, "Absolutely not."

You are still around eh? I've been gone for a while but starting to socialize again as my life has calmed down somewhat. I agree with you but don't carry it out as far as you do. And now I'm just extrapolating your position so feel free to call me out but I don't think the bible is any more the word of god or jesus in the same way I consider the book of mormon not to be the word of any divine source.

I grew up religious but I outgrew the need that there must be something much holier and wiser than me that created me. I still think there are people much holier, greater and wiser than me but not to repeat I think they are people. I'm not on this supernatural journey as I know my creators. (They are my mom and my dad and they know their creators to some extant. etc)
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
You are still around eh? I've been gone for a while but starting to socialize again as my life has calmed down somewhat. I agree with you but don't carry it out as far as you do. And now I'm just extrapolating your position so feel free to call me out but I don't think the bible is any more the word of god or jesus in the same way I consider the book of mormon not to be the word of any divine source.

I grew up religious but I outgrew the need that there must be something much holier and wiser than me that created me. I still think there are people much holier, greater and wiser than me but not to repeat I thing they are people. I'm not on this supernatural journey as I know my creators. (They are my mom and my dad and they know their creators to some extant. etc)
Suit yourself. I have nothing against people who don't believe in God. I have always kind of been of the opinion that some people are simply born more inclined to believe than others. I do find it kind of offensive, though, that so many non-believers see themselves as having "outgrown" something that the rest of us still "need." It strikes me as arrogant and condescending, and I don't care much for those traits in either religious zealots or atheists and agnostics.

And yes, I'm still around. Having been hanging out here for twelve and a half years now, I don't plan on disappearing any time soon.
 

Vaderecta

Active Member
Suit yourself. I have nothing against people who don't believe in God. I have always kind of been of the opinion that some people are simply born more inclined to believe than others. I do find it kind of offensive, though, that so many of them see themselves as having "outgrown" something that the rest of us "need." It strikes me as arrogant, and I don't care much for arrogance in either religious zealots or atheists.

I would feel the same way as if someone came to me and said they outgrew the need to not believe in a god. I should probably choose my words more carefully.

Point well taken. Thanks. So I guess I have to explain that bit... I don't feel like the most holy, smartest or wisest person on this planet but feel there are both people today that are better than me in those and many more qualities and there have been those that were better than me in those particular qualities and every other quality. My comment that I outgrew was meant to express that when I was younger I was under the assumption I could be the best at certain qualities my faith dictated to me but I grew to learn this was simply not the case. I wasn't trying to disparage people that believe in some faith that I outgrew but rather that my faith that was never going to be as good or upheld as faithfully as others are or have been.
 
Last edited:

Super Universe

Defender of God
Many of the atheists are homosexuals? What does many mean to you? I have no problem with someone assigning me the label of atheist but I identify more as an agnostic.

You got a chance to earn heaven? Afterlife beliefs are driving your living goals? Like 40 virgins?

What does many of the atheists being homosexuals mean to me? Nothing. Not my business.

You are an agnostic, not an atheist? Okay fine.

Afterlife beliefs are driving my living goals? Not hardly. Getting grass to grow in an acid environment under oak trees is my current living goal.

I might get 40 virgins? That might be another religion.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
why is George Lucas the official authority on The Force? why can't their be a truly good evil dark side to the force?

the Christian thing I've long forgotten.
 
Top