Upon this rock/Keys

dingoling.

Well-known member
it was an example of an authority and a subordinate based on your claim that the interpreter is the more authoarative

It is not true for the soldier interpreting his commanding officer's orders;
It is not true for the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution
It is not true for Christians interpreting Scripture
so I ask you
Is it true that Catholics interpreting their Church's teachings are more authoritative than their Church?
No.
As a Private I interpret sayings of the Colonel. Based on my interpretation the Colonel says that the King has established an office of Prime Minister over the Kingdom and this Prime Minister has authority over the Kingdom while the King is physically absent.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
No.
As a Private I interpret sayings of the Colonel. Based on my interpretation the Colonel says that the King has established an office of Prime Minister over the Kingdom and this Prime Minister has authority over the Kingdom while the King is physically absent.
so the interpreter does NOT have more authority than God's words:

and your claim that "some" of your Church's declarations are at the same level of authority as Scripture is blasphemous.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
How does that not answer the question?
If Scripture tells us Abram's was credited righteousness before he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance...."

"How did Abram obey before God credited to him as righteousness?"
see the word before?
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
so the interpreter does NOT have more authority than God's words:
your claim that the Sola Scriptura practicing Christians have more authority than Scripture is false
E.g. let's go back to the old argument.

Jesus said, "....this is my body....this is my blood of the covenant..." Sola Scriptura practicing say that it is not his body and that it is not his blood of the covenant.

How is this not putting yourself as more authoritative than scripture?
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
If Scripture tells us Abram's was credited righteousness before he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance...."

"How did Abram obey before God credited to him as righteousness?"
see the word before?
Where does scripture tell us that Abraham was credited righteousness before he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance...?
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
E.g. let's go back to the old argument.

Jesus said, "....this is my body....this is my blood of the covenant..." Sola Scriptura practicing say that it is not his body and that it is not his blood of the covenant.

How is this not putting yourself as more authoritative than scripture?
BECAUSE
The interpreter of an authority is NOT more authoritative than their authority.

not for soldiers, the Supreme Court, nCCs, or Catholics.

Their is not example where it is true.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Where does scripture tell us that Abraham was credited righteousness before he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance...?
Hebrews 11
it is by faith <by belief> he went out....

Romans 4:3
“Abraham believed <had faith> God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

If he had faith...then he was justified

Romans 5:1
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference?

Solo Scriptura (Nuda Scriptura / Bible Alone ) rejects all other authorities

but Sola Scriptura
From Catholic.com
the principle of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone"), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized

from New Advent

"The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice (not the only source)"
" Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible,"

from James White:
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
BECAUSE
The interpreter of an authority is NOT more authoritative than their authority.

not for soldiers, the Supreme Court, nCCs, or Catholics.

Their is not example where it is true.
Does your interpretation have any authority over those whose interpretation is different?
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
Does your interpretation have any authority over those whose interpretation is different?
maybe: maybe not
but you are changing the comparison
we are not comparing the authority of interpreters to interpreters:
we are addressing YOUR claim of the authority of nCCs interpreters to the authority of God's word.

You claim nCC's interpreters place themselves above the authority of God's word.
You claim the authority of your Church is equal the authority of God's word.

Both claims are in error
 

A new day

Well-known member
Man, it sure seems like the Rc's on here PLAY dumb on purpose. What ever will push people away from a bible. All I have heard from Rc's mary this, mary that, mary this. Make absolutely sure there is no faith in Jesus on the cross. Or that He isn't powerful enough to declare sinners NOT guilty. Gotta go through the church, gotta go through mary, anything but simply taking God at His word.

They have diverted every discussion away from simply believing that God loves us enough to simply declare us not guilty if we believe Him regarding what He, Himself said is the way to Him. It is pretty much disowning the bible. Because its whole purpose is to point us to Christ. NOT mary, or obedience to church leaders.

Instead of believing Jesus’ death on the cross was the perfect and complete payment for our sin. They teach everyone to just listen to Rc leaders instead of What God said is the way to Him. They are pretty much so to speak telling people to not believe their bibles.
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
Solo Scriptura (Nuda Scriptura / Bible Alone ) rejects all other authorities

but Sola Scriptura
From Catholic.com
the principle of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone"), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized

from New Advent

"The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice (not the only source)"
" Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible,"

from James White:
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
Now we just need to find all this jipperish in scripture. Lol.
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
Hebrews 11
it is by faith <by belief> he went out....

Romans 4:3
“Abraham believed <had faith> God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

If he had faith...then he was justified

Romans 5:1
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith
Romans 4 is a quote from Genesis 15. When Abraham left it was years earlier.
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
BECAUSE
The interpreter of an authority is NOT more authoritative than their authority.

not for soldiers, the Supreme Court, nCCs, or Catholics.

Their is not example where it is true.
But your interpretation is contrary to the actual words of scripture.
 
Top