My brother, the words of God carry the Authority of their Author. No one man or group of men has an _equal_ Authority with the Author of life. That's the issue. We do not add our stamp of approval on top of his seal of authenticity. There is a certain degree of authority involved in our fathers and brothers, but it is a _derived_ authority and it is only "if consonant with the Word of God" which means they can be wrong.
Discussion
There is truth to the idea that we read the Scriptures "with the church," but even then--groups of men can go astray, as had happened just before the Reformation. Luther was right to protest, and he was right to plead for a return to Augustinianism. The grounds for this is that no one man or group of men has authority above the Scriptures; the Scriptures are the final arbiter of all disputes.
Even going back to the great Schism between the East and West, we can debate about "how" that happened, whether it was in order, whether it was truly "ecumenical," but the actual substance of the debate is the more important thing. And the West was **right** to add the _filioque_ clauses--doctrinally speaking. The East was (respectably!) keen to preserve the unity of God -- the "numerically one" God -- the single _principium_ -- but once we start speaking about the order of operations, that by definition shifts the focus from the "oneness of substance" to the "threeness of persons." And Scriptures are clear that the Holy Spirit _does proceed_ from both the Father and the Son.
The most important matter is not "who is saying what" but "what is being said." We even see this in Paul: he rejoiced that the gospel was being preached correctly (even though with malicious motive) and he lambasted those who preached the gospel wrongly (even though with arguably good intention).
The message, not the man, is the thing.
Rome can’t win on scriptural grounds, which is why they make it about authority structures instead, but Scripture itself corrected Rome’s errors at the Reformation, proving Scripture’s sufficiency without their magisterium.
Right on.
Paul outright anathematized anyone who preached "another gospel (which is not another)" - **himself included** - so it seems rather important, I think, that we ask the question: _who gets the gospel right_? And don't miss the vital point that he included himself in this warning: that means the most important thing is not "who is saying it" but "what is being said."
That’s not the implication at all. No one (not me anyway) is comparing the authority of God with that of men, rather, I am acknowledging that Christ gave His Church real, derived authority to teach in His name.
The bible doesn’t interpret itself, so the question becomes: who decides what is consonant with the Word of God? Is it every individual reader? That has to be the case absent a magisterium, which is why Sola Scriptura has led to thousands of competing interpretations, each claiming to follow Scripture alone.
True unity requires not only God’s Word, but the teaching authority Christ Himself established to preserve it faithfully.
I agree that the authority of our teachers / fathers / brothers in the church is derived from authority, and (thus) inferior to it. And what happens when those teachers / fathers / brothers disagree? They appeal to Scripture, make their arguments from Scripture. Yes, sadly, there are those who misinterpret the Scriptures - whether from ignorance or malice - and Paul warned us of them in Acts 20.
That derived authority is not vested in individuals or even offices directly--but to the whole church, as a church. And then men are chosen to fill those offices--but they can be removed for unfaithfulness. But there's only one "kind" of authority in the church.
And, when I say that the Scriptures interpret themselves, what I mean is that we can interpret the more difficult passages by the more clear passages, and follow what comes out "by good and necessary consequence." I also mean that the Scriptures are _sufficient_ for teaching us "all things necessary for life and godliness," etc.
appreciate the thoughtful reply. I agree that all authority in the Church is derived from Christ, but He clearly established that authority through visible offices, not just the collective body of believers (see 1 Timothy 3, among other places). The Church doesn’t ordain itself afterall; it receives leadership through apostolic succession.
And while “Scripture interprets Scripture” sounds good, someone still has to decide which passages clarify others. I would say that’s already interpretation. The early Church settled those disputes through councils guided by apostolic authority, not by individual consensus.
I think we probably agree more than we disagree on loving Scripture, we just differ on how Christ intended His Church to guard it.