Church "authority"

[Augustus24]

Hmm…I do not see it explicitly spelled out in scripture. I see where the Father and the Son are one, but as I mentioned before, I do not see where scripture calls the Father and the Holy Spirit one, or the Son and the Holy Spirit as one. Perhaps you could illustrate?

OK. You and I (me as a former non-Catholic that is) claim that all doctrine is normed by scripture, and yet we competely disagree on what scripture says about the Eucharist. Who can settle the matter for us, in light of the fact that we disagree, and the norm is not helping?

Hmm…I do not see it explicitly spelled out in scripture. I see where the Father and the Son are one, but as I mentioned before, I do not see where scripture calls the Father and the Holy Spirit one, or the Son and the Holy Spirit as one. Perhaps you could illustrate?

Alright this is going to take a while. Well we can see in scripture that almost all of the characteristics of God the Father are also applied to the Son and the Holy Spirit: We see the Trinity from looking at the whole of scripture, there is no one single formula:

All are God: Father (Phil. 2), Son (Col 2:9), Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).
All are Creator: Father (Is 64:8) Son (John 1:3), Spirit (Job 33:4)
All are omnipresent: Father (1 Kings 8:27), Son (Matt 28:20), Spirit (Ps 139: 7-10)
All are omniscient: Father (1 John 3:20), Son (John 16:30), Spirit (1 Cor 2:10-11)
All are eternal: Father (Ps 90:2), Son (Micah 5:1-2), Spirit (Rom 8:11)

Yet there is only one God: (Is 43:10) and so on. Ergo since there is only one God, and all three of the persons of the Trinity share the same Godly characteristics, they are all God.

OK. You and I (me as a former non-Catholic that is) claim that all doctrine is normed by scripture, and yet we competely disagree on what scripture says about the Eucharist. Who can settle the matter for us, in light of the fact that we disagree, and the norm is not helping?

Do you believe that all doctrine is normed by scripture? There are plenty of Catholic doctrines that I presume you believe in, that are completely absent from scripture. As for the Eucharist, the Catholic teaching is absent from scripture so at best it is a pious opinion regarding the Eucharist based on adding to Jesus and Paul’s words. Jesus says “this is”, Paul says “this is”. No one says “this is changed into” as the Catholic church believes. Ergo the Catholic position constitutes and adding to scripture, and the doctrine didn’t develop for hundreds of years after the Apostles, that’s why no Apostle, or anyone in the Early Church taught substance, and accidents, and “this changes into”, and why the Eastern Orthodox had rejected the teaching.

As for who settles the argument, I don’t believe the disagreement between us will be settled until the end of this age. Until then, our different opinions are imo, pious opinions and neither is binding. The RCC on the other hand, declares its teaching to be absolutely true and no one can dare hold a different opinion (even though most Catholics do). And there is no reason historically or biblically to accept that the current Roman Pope is the the head honcho of Christianity and all Christians must submit to him or else.

 

[joe370]

Augustus24;10463404]Alright this is going to take a while. Well we can see in scripture that almost all of the characteristics of God the Father are also applied to the Son and the Holy Spirit: We see the Trinity from looking at the whole of scripture, there is no one single formula:

All are God: Father (Phil. 2), Son (Col 2:9), Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).
All are Creator: Father (Is 64:8) Son (John 1:3), Spirit (Job 33:4)
All are omnipresent: Father (1 Kings 8:27), Son (Matt 28:20), Spirit (Ps 139: 7-10)
All are omniscient: Father (1 John 3:20), Son (John 16:30), Spirit (1 Cor 2:10-11)
All are eternal: Father (Ps 90:2), Son (Micah 5:1-2), Spirit (Rom 8:11)

Yet there is only one God: (Is 43:10) and so on. Ergo since there is only one God, and all three of the persons of the Trinity share the same Godly characteristics, they are all God.

An implicit understanding? Agreed. However, scripture never tells us that the Father and the HS are one, or that the Son and the HS are one. What we can say, with certainty, from scripture alone: all three are God, the creator, omnipresent and eternal, something that really shocked Jews and Christians of the past and present.

Do you believe that all doctrine is normed by scripture?

Sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition, via the discernment of the God preserving and transmitting doctrinal truth via Jesus’ church! Doctrine, normed by scripture, has sadly fractured Jesus’ Mystical Body, and is not scriptural at all.

There are plenty of Catholic doctrines that I presume you believe in, that are completely absent from scripture.

Just one. Mary’s assumption. As a former Protestant, it was sola scriptura that was completely absent from scripture i.e. not biblical. No biggie though, as a catholic that is, for Jesus gave us His church, from which sacred scripture came.

As for the Eucharist, the Catholic teaching is absent from scripture so at best it is a pious opinion regarding the Eucharist based on adding to Jesus and Paul’s words. Jesus says “this is”, Paul says “this is”. No one says “this is changed into” as the Catholic church believes. Ergo the Catholic position constitutes and adding to scripture, and the doctrine didn’t develop for hundreds of years after the Apostles, that’s why no Apostle, or anyone in the Early Church taught substance, and accidents, and “this changes into”, and why the Eastern Orthodox had rejected the teaching.

I could quote scripture as well e.g. (For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself) but what’s the point; we still disagree - to which you say: “As for who settles the argument, I don’t believe the disagreement between us will be settled until the end of this age.”

Therefore truth is not knowable in your opinion, which is why you said:

Until then, our different opinions are imo, pious opinions and neither is binding. The RCC on the other hand, declares its teaching to be absolutely true and no one can dare hold a different opinion (even though most Catholics do).

Truth is not relative and I have faith that God continues to transmit and preserve doctrinal truth so that all generations can have access to it; not just the Christians of the apostolic age. You don’t; that’s cool.

And there is no reason historically or biblically to accept that the current Roman Pope is the the head honcho of Christianity and all Christians must submit to him or else.

He is not!!! Just the church to which I belong.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Do you believe that all doctrine is normed by scripture? There are plenty of Catholic doctrines that I presume you believe in, that are completely absent from scripture.

Plenty has to be a big number. What do you think… about 10? Let’s start with 10.
Would you please name 10 Catholic doctrines that are completely absent from Scripture?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)

As for the Eucharist, the Catholic teaching is absent from scripture so at best it is a pious opinion regarding the Eucharist based on adding to Jesus and Paul’s words. Jesus says “this is”, Paul says “this is”. No one says “this is changed into” as the Catholic church believes. Ergo the Catholic position constitutes and adding to scripture, and the doctrine didn’t develop for hundreds of years after the Apostles, that’s why no Apostle, or anyone in the Early Church taught substance, and accidents, and “this changes into”, and why the Eastern Orthodox had rejected the teaching.

Hundreds of years after the Apostles? Another big number… Do you see a pattern here?

Let’s hear Justin Martyr (About 150A.D. - John died about 90A.D., so LESS than 100 years after the Apostles)

CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

I thought you were familiar with historiography…

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Really? Show us one verse where the Apostles knew what they wrote was scripture? Where does Paul clearly say: What I have written down is sacred scripture.

Augustus:
Peter recognizes that Paul was writing scripture.

“He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

Hello! Where does Paul verbally say what he is writing down is scripture? Show me? Where? His letters were **placed and considered **on the same level as the OT books,but no where does St. Paul himself say it is scripture. It is you alone who said the Apostles knew what they personally wrote was scripture. Again…where does St.Paul say it?

Quote:
Clement’s letter to the Corinthians was read out-loud at Sunday servcies for centuries because it was acknowledged as scripture. Why isn’t it in our Bibles,if according to you the canon is not doctrine?

Augustus:
It may have been read, but it was not considered scripture.

Hello! WRONG! Hello…the Corinthian community themselves considered it. Try reading ancient history,not secondary hand sources you provide. Hmmmm…Geeee…I wonder who decided what constitutes scripture or not? A question you evidently dodge.

When Athanasius composed his list of the 27 NT books he left it out, and that was 15 years before Pope Damasus and the Council of Rome. No Pope or magisterium was necessary to tell him either way.

LOL! Gotta love Protestants and their revisionist view of history. Cannot go your way,so lets re-write history to suit your Protestant novelties. Once more…the fact he provided a list does not conclude he was the final voice for the entire church. Athansius was not of the Protestant mind: Self-centered and my own-will before the church and Christ. Finally, if no church or pope was neccessary to tell him…THEN WHY DIDN’T HE CANONIZE IT HIMSELF?

Quote:
Again,who determined what constituted scripture or not?

Augustus:
The church simply recognizes the word of God.

LOL! You have a lot to learn about the church Christ founded. Read your Bible again. If church only recognizes the Word of God,then amazing how Jesus has used his church to defend,define and ratify orthodox doctrines as the Tinity,Incarnation,Hypostatic Union,etc.

The sheep know the shepherds voice. The NT was accepted prior to any Pope or Magisterium declaring it so.

Wrong again! If the NT was accepted prior to any pope or the church,then why wasn’t it canonized before ANY pope or church council,local or ecumenical?

Again…if canon is not doctrine,then tell us WHO decided to set-forth the 27 NT canon and give it to us? If it is not the pope and its bishops…THEN WHO?

 

[Nicea325]

Augustus24:
There are plenty of Catholic doctrines that I presume you believe in, that are completely absent from scripture.

Really? Name them. Second, I am still waiting for you to shows where the dcotrine or praxis of Sola Scriptura is completely and explcitly taught. Please Augustus24 show us where in the Bible it clearly says: Sola Scriptura and that is the highest authority?

Please tell me you can defend SS from the Bible and show us all that for 2,000 years it was taught from the Bible and it is not absent?

Chapter and verse please where Jesus says: Scripture is the highest authority and Sola Scriptura!

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustus24
Hello Joe.

That doesn’t make sense to me either, and I have never made any such claim.

What I do say is that if there is a doctrine that is not found in the bible, its not binding on all Christianity

Ohh…like Sola Scriptura? Again…where does Jesus say: Sola Scriptura. Scripture alone is the norm and praxis for doctrine.

Please…show us where?

 

[kwortham]

Hello Joe.

They would be wrong. The Trinity is clearly taught in scripture.

I believe you are speaking about the Council of Nicaea. The Nicaean Creed is consistent with scripture, and all its doctrine is normed by scripture. Ergo, there is no new doctrine being promoted, or extra biblical doctrine. Again the bishops present could only define what had already been taught by scripture, and that’s the extent of their authority.

Your statement is based on the faulty and heretical supposition that anything must be found in scripture to be true. If so, then what is the scripture where it says that it must be found in scripture to be true. If you cannot provide this scripture verse, then admit to the heresy of sola scriputura.

 

[Augustus24]

Plenty has to be a big number. What do you think… about 10? Let’s start with 10.
Would you please name 10 Catholic doctrines that are completely absent from Scripture?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)

Hundreds of years after the Apostles? Another big number… Do you see a pattern here?

Let’s hear Justin Martyr (About 150A.D. - John died about 90A.D., so LESS than 100 years after the Apostles)

I thought you were familiar with historiography…

Hello.

Plenty has to be a big number. What do you think… about 10? Let’s start with 10. Would you please name 10 Catholic doctrines that are completely absent from Scripture?

Do you really want to discuss 10 doctrines? But sure here are ten Catholic doctrines that are absent from the scriptures:

1. Universal Papal jurisdiction over all churches to which all churches must submit under pain of eternal damnation.
2. Papal infallibility
3. Praying to saints or any dead person
4. Existence of Purgatory
5. Mary as immaculately conceived
6. Mary as co-mediator
7. Mary flew off into heaven without dying first
8. I dont know if you guys still teach it, but when I was a Catholic, they taught that Mary’s hymen remained intact throughout childbirth.
9. Indulgences
10. The theory of transubstantiation that involves the Aristotelian terms of substance and accidents, and medieval alchemical forms.

Hundreds of years after the Apostles? Another big number… Do you see a pattern here?

Let’s hear Justin Martyr (About 150A.D. - John died about 90A.D., so LESS than 100 years after the Apostles)

I am familiar with Justin Martyr. He doesnt mention anything about substance and accidents, or alchemical forms, or that the bread and wine disappear substantially, all that was later invention by your denomination.

 

[kwortham]

Do you believe that all doctrine is normed by scripture?

No! The Church is the pillar and ground of truth and not scripture! Show us in the bible where it says that scripture is the pillar of truth! How many times do we have to ask for you to show us this verse???

There are plenty of Catholic doctrines that I presume you believe in, that are completely absent from scripture.

If so, then you would have named them. Since you did not, then they do not exist.

As for the Eucharist, the Catholic teaching is absent from scripture so at best it is a pious opinion regarding the Eucharist based on adding to Jesus and Paul’s words.

(John 6:53)
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,** Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.**

(John 6:54)
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

(John 6:55)
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

(John 6:56)
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

(John 6:57)
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

(John 6:58)
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

(1Cor 11:27)
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

.What part of this is too difficult for you to understand???

 

[Augustus24]

Really? Name them. Second, I am still waiting for you to shows where the dcotrine or praxis of Sola Scriptura is completely and explcitly taught. Please Augustus24 show us where in the Bible it clearly says: Sola Scriptura and that is the highest authority?

Please tell me you can defend SS from the Bible and show us all that for 2,000 years it was taught from the Bible and it is not absent?

Chapter and verse please where Jesus says: Scripture is the highest authority and Sola Scriptura!

Hello.

Second, I am still waiting for you to shows where the dcotrine or praxis of Sola Scriptura is completely and explcitly taught. Please Augustus24 show us where in the Bible it clearly says: Sola Scriptura and that is the highest authority?

The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message.

*All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
*

Also notice when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness in Mark 4, all three times Our Lord refutes Satan using Sola Scriptura, every time our Lord refutes Satan with an “it is written” statement

Can you show me in scripture where our Lord or an Apostle appeals to an oral tradition instead of scripture?

 

[kwortham]

Hello.
I am familiar with Justin Martyr. He doesnt mention anything about substance and accidents, or alchemical forms, or that the bread and wine disappear substantially, all that was later invention by your denomination.

1st Apology of Saint Justin Martyr, Chapter 66:

"Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn."

 

[Augustus24]

No! The Church is the pillar and ground of truth and not scripture! Show us in the bible where it says that scripture is the pillar of truth! How many times do we have to ask for you to show us this verse???

If so, then you would have named them. Since you did not, then they do not exist.

(John 6:53)
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,** Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.**

(John 6:54)
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

(John 6:55)
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

(John 6:56)
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

(John 6:57)
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

(John 6:58)
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

(1Cor 11:27)
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

.What part of this is too difficult for you to understand???

Hello. You said:

No! The Church is the pillar and ground of truth and not scripture! Show us in the bible where it says that scripture is the pillar of truth! How many times do we have to ask for you to show us this verse?

A pillar holds something up, and a ground or bulwark defends it. The church is a pillar and bulwark of truth because it holds up and defends scripture, which is the truth. Scripture itself says it is sufficient in 2 Timothy 3. Do you believe scripture is sufficient, or do you need a Pope and Magisterium as well?

(John 6:53)
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,** Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.**

(John 6:54)
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

(John 6:55)
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

(John 6:56)
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

(John 6:57)
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

(John 6:58)
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

(1Cor 11:27)
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

I believe Jesus meant what he said. Catholics add “is changed into” to his words. And he does not mention anything about Aristotelian substance or accidents, or medieval alchemical forms. Also notice Paul still called is “bread” nothing about “body under the appearance of bread”. All that was invented hundreds of years later. If Paul and Jesus call it bread, then it’s bread, no need to add to their own words.

What part of this is too difficult for you to understand??

Please address me respectfully. If you cannot please do not comment at all.

 

[kwortham]

Hello.
The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message.

Sola scriptura “contradicts” scripture, since it is not found in scripture. Deal with it.

 

[kwortham]

A pillar holds something up, and a ground or bulwark defends it. The church is a pillar and bulwark of truth because it holds up and defends scripture, which is the truth. Scripture itself says it is sufficient in 2 Timothy 3. Do you believe scripture is sufficient, or do you need a Pope and Magisterium as well?

Where in 2 Timothy Chapter 3 is the word sufficient use??? Nowhere! Scripture is called “profitable”, but never sufficient! Only the Church is called the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church is in charge of scripture and not the other way around,

 

[kwortham]

Please address me respectfully. If you cannot please do not comment at all.

I am addressing you as respectfully as it is possible to address someone that preaches the heresy of sola scriptura without showing us a scripture verse that teaches sola scriptura.

 

[Augustus24]

Where in 2 Timothy Chapter 3 is the word sufficient use??? Nowhere! Scripture is called “profitable”, but never sufficient! Only the Church is called the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church is in charge of scripture and not the other way around,

Your correct, sorry about that, sufficient is not used.

Check out Psalm 19:7-14

David rejoices in God’s Word, declaring it to be perfect, trustworthy, right, radiant, enlightening, sure and altogether righteous. As such, being that the Bible is “perfect,” no other writings are necessary because it is inspired by God and all we need for salvation, life in Christ, and the building of the Kingdom.

The Church is in charge of scripture and not the other way around,

Can you show me in your catechism where your denomination claims to be “in charge” of scripture?

 

[kwortham]

Your correct, sorry about that, sufficient is not used.

Check out Psalm 19:7-14

David rejoices in God’s Word, declaring it to be perfect, trustworthy, right, radiant, enlightening, sure and altogether righteous. As such, being that the Bible is “perfect,” no other writings are necessary because it is inspired by God and all we need for salvation, life in Christ, and the building of the Kingdom.

The Law of the Lord is perfect! However, Psalm 19:7-14 does not refer to scripture. It refers to the law of the Lord.

(Jer 31:33)
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD,** I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts**; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Write it in their hearts?! Hmmm! This doesn’t sound like a book!!!

Can you show me in your catechism where your denomination claims to be “in charge” of scripture?

 

[kwortham]

Your correct, sorry about that, sufficient is not used.
Can you show me in your catechism where your denomination claims to be “in charge” of scripture?

Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot to answer this. According to scripture, which bows down to the authority of the Church:

(1Tim 3:15)
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Sorry! I don’t see the Catechism listed there. I also don’t see in my Catechism where it makes that claim for itself. Only the 2000 year old Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. The Catechism only informs someone of the basic tenants of the Church. It does not claim to be complete.

 

[Augustus24]

Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot to answer this. According to scripture, which bows down to the authority of the Church:

(1Tim 3:15)
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Sorry! I don’t see the Catechism listed there. I also don’t see in my Catechism where it makes that claim for itself. Only the 2000 year old Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. The Catechism only informs someone of the basic tenants of the Church. It does not claim to be complete.

Scripture does not bow down to the authority of the church.

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.

 

[kwortham]

Scripture does not bow down to the authority of the church.

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.

If true, then what scripture assumes authority of the Church? The Church gave us scripture. Scripture did not give us the Church!

Give me the verse that states that scripture is in command of all that Christians are to believe or surrender.