Scripture Has Ultimate Authority 

This is such a true message. I was brought up Catholic. However, after reading the bible myself I saw how highly Catholics put their traditions and rituals above anything else including scripture. I come from an Italian background and where my parents are from traditions such as celebrating saints to the point of building statues of them and following it being held high around their village is more important to them then spending time with God, reading scripture and repenting. I am a Christian with no denomination now and I pray for my Catholic brother's and sister's that they repent. Thank you Jeff and God bless

Very helpful pastor Jeff.

Since apologia expanded and started a church in Hawaii please do expand again and start a church in Utah county Utah we need a sound church please

How could scripture be the ultimate authority when there are multiple interpretations of scripture? The pharisees thought this and yet they missed the very Messiah that the scriptures spoke about.

The Holy Scriptures were canonized and compiled by the Catholic councils of Hippo 393, and Carthage 397 and 419. Church tradition evolved long before the Reformation which gave birth to the Scriptures.

Sola scriptura? 2 Thessalonians 2: "Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." John 5 :39-40: "You pore over the scriptures, believing that in them you can find eternal life; it is these scriptures that testify to me, and yet you refuse to come to me to receive life!" In conjunction with this, the Bible tells us that the living Christ-filled _church_ is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not the scriptures' filter-words, language and sentences set in isolation. It is the _events_ and _beings_ detailed in Scriptures that matter, not simply and solely scriptures as something separate and special and alone. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over his _church_. His words will never pass away because of the _living beings_ who speak those words, chief among them the Living Word, who is _not identical_ with your printed bibles. The latter are necessary and wonderful, but the two are not one and the same. Fundamentalists fatally misunderstand this.

Praise God

Thanks.👍 Best Regards, William Tyndale

Since Jeff only addressed it by saying it’s his preference (and referenced PNG as the standard), can someone please clarify why Leviticus says not to tattoo our bodies and Paul instructs us not to look like the world? I really want to understand this view of piercings and ink and gages as being a biblical way to present ourselves. Thanks.

If scripture has ultimate authority can someone provide the moment when scripture decided between two competing biblical interpretations since by definition an 'authority' can make decisions and wield power?

Praying so hard for those less than pleased babies XD

i always hear babies weeping in apologia studios' videos haha

Who can delegate His authority but the One with authority? Matthew 16:13-19

Jesus Christ has ultimate authority. 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

MATTHEW 23 Woe unto you all Pastors. At the beginning of the missionary activity of Jesus, the doctors of Jerusalem went to Galilee to observe Him (Mk 3:22; 7:1). Disturbed by Jesus’ preaching, they had based their attacks on saying that He was possessed (Mk 3:22). All along the three years the popularity of Jesus grew. And at the same time, the conflict between He and the religious authority also grew. The origin of this conflict was the way in which they placed themselves before God. The Pharisees sought their own security, not so much in God’s love toward them, but rather in the rigorous observance of the Law. Before this mentality, Jesus insists on the practice of love which makes the observance of the law relative and gives it its true significance. Matthew 23:1-3: The root or origin of the criticism: They say but they do not do . Jesus recognizes the authority of the scribes and of the Pharisees. They occupy the chair of Moses and teach the law of God, but they themselves do not observe what they teach. So Jesus tells them: You must, therefore, do and observe what they tell you, but do not do as they do, because they say but do not do! This is a terrible criticism! Immediately, as in a mirror, Jesus shows some aspects of the incoherence of the religious authority. Matthew 23:4-7: Look in the mirror in order to make a revision of life. Jesus calls the attention of the disciples concerning the incoherent behavior of some doctors of the Law. In meditating on this incoherence, it is helpful to think about ourselves and not about the Pharisees and the scribes of that time already past. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but will not lift a finger to move them; they do their works in order to be admired; they love to take the first places and to be called doctors. The scribes liked to enter into the houses of the widows and to recite long prayers to receive money in exchange! (Mk 12:40). Matthew 23:8-10): You are all brothers. Jesus orders that we have the contrary attitude. Instead of using the religion and the community as means for self-promotion in order to appear more important before others, He asks not to use the title of Rabbi or Teacher, of Master, Father and Guide because only one is the guide, Christ; only God in Heaven is Father, and Jesus is the Master, the Teacher. You are all brothers. This is the basis of the fraternity which comes from the certainty that God is our Father. Matthew 23:11-12: The greatest must be the servant. This phrase is what characterizes both the teaching and the behavior of Jesus: The greatest among you must be your servant; the one who raises himself up, will be humbled (cfr. Mk 10:43; Lk 14:11; 18:14). • Matthew 23:13: The first “Alas for you...” against those who close the door of the Kingdom because in this way you will not enter and, you do not even let those who want to enter. How do they lock people out of the Kingdom? They do it by presenting God as a severe judge, leaving very little space for the mercy of God; by imposing, in the name of God, laws and norms which have nothing to do with the commandments of God, by presenting a false image of the Kingdom and by killing the desire to serve God and the Kingdom. A community which organizes itself around this false god “does not enter into the Kingdom,” and it is not even an expression of the Kingdom and prevents its members from entering into the Kingdom. • Matthew 23:14: The second “Alas for you...” is against those who use religion Pastors to enrich themselves (Prosperity Gospel). You devour the property of widows, though you make a show of lengthy prayers. The more severe will be the sentence you receive because of this.” Jesus allows the disciples to live the Gospel, because He says that the laborer has the right to his salary (Lk 10:7; cf. 1 Cor 9:13-14), but to use prayer and religion as a means to enrich themselves, that is hypocrisy and does not reveal the Good News of God. It transforms religion into a market. Jesus drives out the merchants from the Temple (Mk 11:15-19) quoting the prophet Jeremiah: “My house will be called a House of Prayer for all people; but you have turned it into a bandits’ den!” (Mk 11: 17; cf. Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11). When Simon the magician wanted to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter curses him (Acts 8:18-24). Simon received the “most severe condemnation” which Jesus speaks about in the Gospel today. • Matthew 23:15: The third expression of “Alas for you...” is against those who proselytize. “You travel over sea and land to make a single convert, and anyone who becomes one you make twice as fit for hell as you are.” There are people who become missionaries and proclaim the Gospel not to radiate the Good News, but to attract people for their group and their church. John once prohibited a person from using the name of Jesus because he was not part of His group. Jesus answered, “Do not stop him, because anyone who is not against us is for us (Mk 9:39). The document of the Plenary Assembly of the Bishops of Latin America, which was held in March 2008 in Aparecida, Brazil, bears the title: “Disciples and Missionaries of Jesus Christ, so that our people may have life in Him”. That is to say,, the purpose of the mission is not to work in such a way that people go to Calvary Chapel, but rather that people may have life, and life in abundance.

Did he say that Christian Science is a cult? 48:00

1). Sola scriptura presupposes that one must already know what the contents of scripture are before anyone can claim that scripture is the only source of divine revelation. 2). The apostles were commissioned with preaching the word, not writing it. 3). The Apostles waited quite a bit of time to write anything down. 4). If the early Church had a sola scriptura attitude, it's incredible that they should have taken so much time to define the Biblical canon. 5). There could not be agreement on the canon if the authority of the Church wasn't taken as given. 6). The doctrine of sola scriptura (in the sense that the only source of divine revelation is to be found in “scripture”) is nowhere to be found in scripture itself. The doctrine of sola scriptura in the sense of all divine revelation being written would have been foreign to the minds of Jews and Christians in the first century. In Judaism, oral traditions ostensibly from the time of Moses played an important role in interpreting and amplifying the written Law, and that continues to be the case today. The Gospel was first circulated by oral tradition, and put to writing only belatedly, even reluctantly in the cases of Mark and John. The preferred mode of teaching was by a living voice, as attested not only by Papias, but by Plato and various ancients. The Gospel oral tradition likely continued into the mid-second century, and private reading did not become common until much later. In the earliest centuries of the Church, the Scriptures were those writings that were read in the churches. There was no separation of Scripture from the authority of the Church. You couldn't take the scrolls home to study them, any more than you could from a synagogue. Worship and discourse on the Scripture was consistently communal. It's only later, in the fourth-fifth centuries, that you have a distinctly literary culture with private reading. This remained confined to monks, clerics, and aristocrats due to the great expense of acquiring and copying texts. Luther's notion of sola scriptura was very much a product of its age, made possible only by the printing press and Renaissance notions of the individual. You'll find no analogue to it in any earlier culture, Christian or non-Christian. With regard to who has the authority to interpret Scripture, you'll find once again that Protestant notions of private interpretation would have been alien to the ancients. The term "rabbi" means "teacher" precisely to designate that he is qualified to teach, namely, to interpret the law. This is because he has studied not only the Torah, but also the oral tradition (Mishnah) and its commentaries (Gemara). The reason you see Pharisees in Galilee throughout the Gospels is that they were sent to teach the rustic Galileans to make sure they followed correct doctrine and law. There was not a rigid organizational structure like you would find later with the Catholic Church, but the rabbis generally enjoyed a respect and awe for their authority. They were not infallible, as proved by the fact that they contradicted themselves, and even recorded their contrary opinions on various issues. This was common practice in legal matters. Their intent was not to authoritatively decide an issue for all time, but to try, as best as possible, to discern what the Law demanded in each circumstance. In the Christian Church, the Apostles enjoyed a teaching authority that was unquestioned. This was not because of any personal virtue, but was subordinate to the revelation they received from Christ and were divinely commissioned to preach (orally, not in writing). By the early second century, a distinction between right-believing (orthodox) and heretical churches was established, on the basis that the former were in communion with the churches founded by the Apostles and retained their doctrines. The infallibility of the orthodox Church was not formally defined, but was clearly presumed by the fact that only those in communion with this Church, under the teaching of its bishops, were considered among the elect who had received the Gospel. Later, when there were disagreements on doctrinal subtleties even among the Apostolic churches, the mechanisms of regional councils, ecumenical councils, and appeals to the Pope were introduced to resolve these matters. Again, no one worried about formal criteria of infallibility, since obedience to these authorities was expected regardless. The idea of individuals choosing for themselves when to obey a public authority would have been utterly foreign to that cultural milieu, indeed to the very notion of authority.

For the Catholics who don't believe Sola Scriptura please tell us what else we should consider infallible authority I love it how these Catholics come into a Christian forum and try to teach Christians what we should believe

This Pastor himself admits he has no authority except Scripture. He has his understanding of Scripture. If you have no authority, how do you know for certain your understanding is the correct one? How can you dare say another's understanding of Scripture is wrong, while at the same time admitting you only have your understanding Scripture, without any authority?

I hold a high view of scripture but wouldn't Jesus, the incarnate Word, be the ultimate authorty?

Anti scripturists should stop using the word ‘tradition’. Christ’s word is not tradition, it was codified and passed down. Then written by people who lived among Christ. Tradition is flawed by appeal to authority/consensus. It’s not merely a ‘tradition’ to say, “so and so lived with Christ, and repeated what he said.” That’s the spoken word, and transmission. If it boils down to Christ’s teachings, which we have original autographs of, and a modern biblical interpretation that contradicts those teachings...which do you go with? You know the answer.

"Sola Scriptura" begs the question of what makes something scripture. Is "scripture" anything that is in the Bible or anything that is divine revelation? Jesus mentioned "the law and the prophets", but that doesn't include "the writings" in the OT, so He didn't even embrace the whole OT as we have it now. Also, when Jesus told the Pharisees to focus on the law, none of the NT had been written -- He hadn't even revealed everything He was going to. I understand the step of logic Jeff is making, but Jesus saying "focus on the law vs tradition" doesn't tell us *what* to consider scripture among NT writings, nor that *only* scripture should be considered.

Scripture AND tradition AND the successors of the apostles. By reading from your bible, you acknowledge implicitly the legitimate of Catholic tradition. Namely, the table of contents.

JEFF IS WRONG .... JEHOVAH .. THE SUPREME GOD OF THE UNIVERSE , HAS SUPREME AUTHORITY ... !!! EXODUS 6 : 3 , ISAIAH 12 : 2 , ISAIAH 26 : 4 , PSALMS 83 : 18 ... JESUS IS GOD 'S SON ... JOHN 17 : 3 , JOHN 20 : 17 ....

Jeff: "Rome teaches....there are two deposits" False; What is spoken orally and written are the same deposit. "He who hears you hears me" - Jesus speaking to his apostles - so evidently the things the apostles taught their successors is (by definition) the Word of God. "What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven" - Jesus to Peter - so evidently Jesus said the church founded on Peter will make decisions infallibly "...If he doesn't listen even to the church, then treat him as a tax collector" - Jesus presupposing a church that makes decisions If I told you 1 +1 = 2 orally would that deposit of information be a different deposit of information if I wrote it down and gave it to you? of course not.

I’d like to see some video of him actually changing peoples hearts and minds.

Silver Bullet Argument against Sola Scriptura All Protestants, regardless of denomination, hold to a doctrine known as Sola Scriptura (SS). It could be said that it is the only distinctive teaching that unites all Protestant denominations. So if Sola Scriptura is proven to be false, all of Protestantism falls. To briefly define this unique Protestant doctrine, Sola Scriptura asserts that “Scripture” is the “only” source of divine revelation. Sola Scriptura presupposes prior knowledge of what constitutes “scripture”, which is to say, it assumes the canon of scripture. So when Protestants speak of “scripture” as the only source of divine revelation, they are pointing to a well-defined canon of scripture. However, by claiming that a particular canon of scripture is the ONLY source of divine revelation, they are necessarily excluding all others. Hence, sola scriptura is an essentially exclusivist position. It is exclusivist because there can only be ONE canon of scripture which is the ONLY source of divine revelation (hence the term “only”). Divergent canons cannot equally serve as the “only” source of divine revelation, since it would be an inherent contradiction. The problem with Sola Scriputra, however, is that Protestantism doesn’t allow for a definitive canon, since it teaches that the canon of Scripture is fallible in principle. The exclusivist position implied by Sola Scriptura goes even beyond the Council of Trent’s definition, since the council in question only defined that the books contained in the Catholic canon were inspired; it never excluded that possibility that there might be other inspired books as well. Since Protestantism doesn’t allow for a definitive / exclusive canon, Sola Scritpura is therefore self-refuting. To put the argument in the form of a syllogism: Premise 1: Sola Scriptura (in the sense that Scripture is the only source of divine revelation) implies an exclusivist position in regard to the canon of Scripture. This is so because only one canon can be the “only” source of divine revelation (hence the term “only”). Divergent canons cannot equally serve as the “only” source of divine revelation. Premise 2: Since Protestants consider the canon of Scripture to be falliable / alterable, then the canon of scripture can never be definitively defined. Conclusion: Since Protestants can never definitively define the canon of Scripture, Sola Scriptura is therefore self-refuting. For a seven point refutation of sola scripture: (1) Scripture is the only source of divine revelation (definition of Sola Scriptura) (2) Scripture for Protestants = 66 book canon of the Protestant Bible (3) 66 book canon of the Protestant Bible = Only source of divine revelation (4) Protestants teach that the canon of scripture is fallible/alterable (5) 66 book canon of the Protestant Bible =/= Only source of divine revelation (6) #’s 3 & 5 contradict each other. (7) Sola Scriptura is self-refuting.

reason and science are the ultimate authorities... "scripture" is judged and found wanting: biblical criticism, Genesis 1-11 as myth, evolution, quantum fields as ultimate physical reality, etc.

The letter you read near the end seemed to have valid questions that you waved off with some joke about Papua / New Guinea. "Hey look over there!" is called dodging the question, not addressing it. Do you have a good answer for his questions regarding worldliness seeping into the body of Christ in our Western dress, style, or pagan body modifications? Right here, in America. Not Papua New Guinea. How do pagan practices become acceptable over and against the teaching we do have from the apostles that indicates Christians should reflect Christ in what they do, what they say, and in their appearance, rather than ignoring the last part to do whatever we desire with our appearances? When the Bible says things like "having the appearance of godliness but denying its power" in regards to hypocrites that doesn't mean we shouldn't also have the appearance that truly comports with our reality (the part that the hypocrite lacks). We who are in Christ would have the godliness, the substance behind the appearance, in addition to the godly appearance. Scripture condemning Pharisees and heretics/apostates/hypocrites for trying to look like godly people but lacking the substance behind it, is not a license for us to discard the appearance of godliness. It's a warning to ensure that everyone who claims piety, as Christians would be expected to, are backing up that godly appearance with true faith and godliness in our thoughts, words, and deeds. Never does Scripture encourage is to look and act like the world. In fact, we are told to expect the world to hate us and that we are in the world but to not be of it, which in context clearly implies its practices and behaviors. So it seems the letter you read had some very reasonable concerns that you skipped past to joke about white clothing and aborigines. Who knows, maybe the writer went off on a tangent after that. Regadless, the part you read was mostly valid and would be great to address clearly, whether with repentance or a clear outline from Scripture of why it's okay to add truly pagan (and rebel, outlaw) elements into our appearance.

Good words, but you failed to speak of the Sabbath

Interesting comments about building one's house on a rock, given His Church was also built on the rock of Peter.

BIBLICAL AUTHORITY RELIES HEAVILY ON CIRCULAR REASONING! The term "Biblical Authority" gets tossed around a lot! Let's recall where this idea came from--when Catholics in some parts of Europe were fed up with "Papal Authority" in Rome, and had become quite certain the leadership of the Church had been teaching ideas that, people like Martin Luther, were convinced were foreign to Early Christianity, like paying indulgences to get people out of Purgatory. How, then, to counter Papal Authority in Rome? Well, they could have just appointed a different Authority, like the Eastern (Orthodox) Church did centuries earlier, by making a Patriarchal Authority or something similar. Had Luther wanted to, he might have made himself a sort of Protestant "Pope." But he and other Protestant leaders decided to counter Papal Authority with "Biblical Authority." Thing was, WHAT was the Bible? The idea most have is that the "Bible" was a book that had been around since Jesus' day...which is true, as long as one understands the Bible Jesus used was the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible, or what Christians call the "Old Testament"! But the Christian Bible has a "New Testament" that came from...where exactly??? Well, as it turns out, the Early Church never said which books and letters should be considered equal to the Jewish Bible! There were some favorites, popular in some parts of the Church, and others popular elsewhere! But as the bishopric of Rome became increasingly more powerful, especially after the conversion of the Roman Emperor, the bishops of Rome began rejecting books favored by many other Christians. In summary, it was Papal Christianity that ultimately settled on which books would be considered the Christian Bible, or we should say CATHOLIC Bible! Now, Martin Luther knew this, so when the time came for him to translate "The" Bible into German, guess what he did, or tried to do? Toss out a bunch of books favored by the Catholic Church!!! For example, he got rid of I and II Maccabees (largely because they contain passages that support the belief in a Purgatory). He also tossed out others, like Bel and the Dragon (No! That's not a Disney movie! It's a book that was in "The" Bible for 100s of years!)! Luther also wanted to get rid of Revelation, but he was talked into including it in printed editions toward the back, along with other apocryphal books, like the Shephard of Hermas. He wrote a preface, though, that made it clear Revelation was NOT to be regarded as an inspired text...which the American Bible Society REMOVED in 1807 in their printed editions (Yeah, THAT is how Revelation got in the Protestant New Testament)! In other words, when we use the term "Biblical Authority," there's some major CIRCULAR REASONING going on! To counter the Catholic Church's Papal Authority, Protestants asserted "Biblical Authority" was superior...even though it was the Catholic Church which had selected which books should be in the Bible!!! So, what's a Protestant Christian to do? Well, we can blindly believe that, somehow, the same Church we say had begun swaying from the teachings of Jesus as early as the Second Century was divinely guided into making the perfect choices as to what would later be regarded equal to the original Jewish Bible (though they added books to the Tanakh as well)... or, we can use the brains God gave us to realize what we call the Bible is a MAN-MADE collection of writings in which many a frail, sinful, human being tried to understand what God was trying to tell us! We can, in other words, find God's words and the authority they convey CONTAINED in the Bible, but it's foolish to blindly believe men with many an ulterior motive at several, religious power centers, from Rome to Philadelphia (HQ of the American Bible Society) received a singular book from the hands of angels, perfectly dictated, word for word, by God Himself! Rick Lannoye, author of www.amazon.com/Rightly-Dividing.../dp/B091LSMD9N Are you a victim of Bible Abuse? Get help at ricklannoye.com/contact

The NT books were written in the 1st century but there were other manuscripts of that century (example: the Didache) that was not included into the official canon of Scripture. By the 4th century there were 300+ books circulating about Christ and the Christian faith. Confusion arose. The (Catholic) Church convened 3 councils (Rome, Hippo and Carthage) by the end of that century officialising the biblical canon. Thus, you wouldn't have the Bible if it wasn't for the Catholic Bishops. So by accepting the Bible as it is, you're accepting the authority of who compiled it. It's interesting how all protestants accepts this (with or without knowing the link) but chooses not to accept other authoritarian decrees of the RCC, as well as accepting the Catholic Tradition of meeting on Sunday, rather than the Jewish custom of meeting on Saturday. The earliest NT book was written around A.D. 50. From A.D. 33 to 50 it was a period of tremendous growth for the Church. How could it have grown intact, with the same teachings being passed on orally and consistently, unless the Holy Spirit was safeguarding the transmission of Oral Tradition (a.k.a. Sacred Tradition)? How were so many converted without the aid of Sacred Scripture, if not with the aid of Sacred Tradition? You see, Sola Scriptura is just a 500-years-old heresy, proven to be unbiblical, proposed by Martin Luther.

If you truly believe Scripture is the ultimate authority then you should believe what it says regarding the earth being fixed and unmovable and flat.