Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[guanophore]

The Scriptures are the only inspired-inerrant documents we have. Their authority is greater than any other non-bibilcal document-teaching.
Do you believe that everything the church for the 1st 4 centuries was the truth?

Yes, the inspired inerrant scriptures are considered to have greater authority than extra biblical documents. But they do not have more authority than the teaching authority that wrote and canonized them. Everything that the Church has taught with regard to faith and morals, from the first day of Pentecost when she was born, up until the present day is inspired and inerrant. It is her testimony to the scripture that lets us know it is inspired and inerrant.

It is her testimony that let’s us know that Mary was a perpetual virgin,a nd that she was assumed into heaven.

Should we not understand this title to mean that she was the mother of the human Jesus since God cannot have a mother?

God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, thought He was in the from of God did not count equality with God something to be grasped at, but humbled Himself, and became a man. He had a mother, her name is Mary. She is the mother of God the Son. To say otherwise is to join with Nestorius.

How can your church affirm something that the Scriptures don’t teach? Look up what “full of grace” means in a greek lexicon. It doesn’t mean she was witthout original sin.

You are right. What makes it true is the testimony of Jesus and the HS.

Again, this does not mean the church cannot err.

If the Church can err, then Jesus is a liar.

Huh? Where does Jesus teach that His mother was ascended or without original sin?

You can read the references in the Catechism.

Where do the apostles teach this?

I am not sure what this is responding to, but I can say that the authority of the Apostles to teach was passed on to their successors.

Actually it is your church that is guilty of teaching things that the Scriptures never do.

You say this in an accusatory tone, as if it were something bad?
Jesus commissioned them to preach and teach…of COURSE they are guilty of it! It was his INTENTION that they should teach these things. All of this happened before one word of your NT was written.

Secondly, the scriptures warn of false teachers that will come into the church itself and decieve many with its false teachings which is what these marian dogmas are. See 2 Peter 2:1.

Since you have rejected the teaching authority appointed by Christ, it can only be expected that you would not be able to distinguish true teaching from false.

Since you are convinced that Jesus has lied, what is your intention now? Why are you here on this thread? You have already made up your mind to reject Jesus, and those whom he has sent??

Question: what does the catholic church have to gain by keeping her a perpetural virgin? What doctrine of Christ is impacted negatively if she had other children?

The Church does not “keep” Mary a virgin,she did that herself by the Grace of God, and the protection of Joseph. The major doctrine that is impacted is the one you have already rejected, that of the Apostolic Succession and their Authority given by Christ to teach. It is by that authority we are taught that Mary was ever virgin. Rejecting those whom Christ sent is the same as rejecting Christ. That is why the Church states it is essential for salvation, because those rejecting the teaching are rejecting Jesus.

 

[Strider]

All of these posts going 'round & 'round.
Protestants, who believe ONLY what’s in the Bible, even though the Bible nowhere says everything we need is in the Bible. Hey…that makes Sola Scriptura a tradition!
Anyway, they say that it doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that Mary was assumed into heaven. They’re right.
It also doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that she died. So, whichever way you go, it’s unBiblical.
I choose to believe that she was assumed into heaven, based on Tradition and patristic writing.
Using only the Bible, prove me wrong.

 

[Calvinator]

All of these posts going 'round & 'round.
Protestants, who believe ONLY what’s in the Bible, even though the Bible nowhere says everything we need is in the Bible. Hey…that makes Sola Scriptura a tradition!
Anyway, they say that it doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that Mary was assumed into heaven. They’re right.
It also doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that she died. So, whichever way you go, it’s unBiblical.
I choose to believe that she was assumed into heaven, based on Tradition and patristic writing.
Using only the Bible, prove me wrong.

My issue with this is that it takes several centuries after the death of the apostles before there is any evidence of the assumption.

Your comment about Mary’s death not being recorded in scripture is not applicable to a sola scriptura argument as Mary’s death isn’t a matter of faith.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

My issue with this is that it takes several centuries after the death of the apostles before there is any evidence of the assumption.
Your comment about Mary’s death not being recorded in scripture is not applicable to a sola scriptura argument as Mary’s death isn’t a matter of faith.

I want to address your first point.
I take it that by “evidence of the Assumption,” you are referring to when the Feast began to be celebrated by the Church?
In that case, you gravely misunderstand how the Catholic church works. The Catholic church does NOT assign FEASTS to newly acquired ideas. The Catholic church only assigns solemn Feasts to extremely-long-held beliefs and to canonized Saints.
The Assumption began to be celebrated as a Feast in the 400s.
That means that the authorities, the worldwide body of bishops, had already believed in this for ages and ages. Also, there was not an iota of complaint from any quarter in the church when the Feast of the Assumption was introduced. This was in the 400s, when the Church was extremely Conservative and very, very strict about it’s beliefs. They had to be well established and firmly believed to go back to apostolic times before a Feast celebrating the belief would even think of being introduced.

It is true that the Early Church Fathers prior to the 400s, whose writings we have, did not directly address the Assumption of Mary.
That itself does not militate against the belief at all. Their documents were not addressing Mary, but primarily heresies dealing with the nature of Jesus. There would be no point to bringing up Mary’s assumption in these documents.

What militates in FAVOR of the belief dating back to the apostolic era is the fact that nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, in the first two centuries of Christianity every looked for Mary’s physical remains to preserve them. The early church most certainly DID preserve the remains of important people, and diligently so. Peter was buried on Vatican Hill, Paul at what is now St. Paul’s-Outside-the-Walls, St. James the Greater’s body was buried at Santiago de Compostela in Spain, St. Jude’s remains were brought to the Vatican as soon as it was possible to do so, Mary Magdalene’s remains were reputedly buried in France, and so on and so on and so on. Yet not one person claimed the remains of Mary. Nor did anyone look for them.
There can only be one reason for that: namely, the Christian people believed that her body was not on this earth and there would be no point in looking for nonexistant remains to enshrine.
This continuous – though not specifically written down – belief of the Church from the beginning was the justification for the Church introducing the FEAST DAY of the Assumption in the
400s A.D. It was not a new belief, but an extremely ancient belief.
If the Feast of the Assumption had gone against the common belief of the Faithful and the Authorities, there would have been violent disagreement over the introduction of the Feast. Yet there was nothing but calm and serene acceptance and joyful celebration of the Feast of the Assumption.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Calvinator]

My issue with this is that it takes several centuries after the death of the apostles before there is any evidence of the assumption.
Your comment about Mary’s death not being recorded in scripture is not applicable to a sola scriptura argument as Mary’s death isn’t a matter of faith.

I want to address your first point.
I take it that by “evidence of the Assumption,” you are referring to when the Feast began to be celebrated by the Church?
In that case, you gravely misunderstand how the Catholic church works. The Catholic church does NOT assign FEASTS to newly acquired ideas. The Catholic church only assigns solemn Feasts to extremely-long-held beliefs and to canonized Saints.
The Assumption began to be celebrated as a Feast in the 400s.
That means that the authorities, the worldwide body of bishops, had already believed in this for ages and ages. Also, there was not an iota of complaint from any quarter in the church when the Feast of the Assumption was introduced. This was in the 400s, when the Church was extremely Conservative and very, very strict about it’s beliefs. They had to be well established and firmly believed to go back to apostolic times before a Feast celebrating the belief would even think of being introduced.

It is true that the Early Church Fathers prior to the 400s, whose writings we have, did not directly address the Assumption of Mary.
That itself does not militate against the belief at all. Their documents were not addressing Mary, but primarily heresies dealing with the nature of Jesus. There would be no point to bringing up Mary’s assumption in these documents.

What militates in FAVOR of the belief dating back to the apostolic era is the fact that nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, in the first two centuries of Christianity every looked for Mary’s physical remains to preserve them. The early church most certainly DID preserve the remains of important people, and diligently so. Peter was buried on Vatican Hill, Paul at what is now St. Paul’s-Outside-the-Walls, St. James the Greater’s body was buried at Santiago de Compostela in Spain, St. Jude’s remains were brought to the Vatican as soon as it was possible to do so, Mary Magdalene’s remains were reputedly buried in France, and so on and so on and so on. Yet not one person claimed the remains of Mary. Nor did anyone look for them.
There can only be one reason for that: namely, the Christian people believed that her body was not on this earth and there would be no point in looking for nonexistant remains to enshrine.
This continuous – though not specifically written down – belief of the Church from the beginning was the justification for the Church introducing the FEAST DAY of the Assumption in the
400s A.D. It was not a new belief, but an extremely ancient belief.
If the Feast of the Assumption had gone against the common belief of the Faithful and the Authorities, there would have been violent disagreement over the introduction of the Feast. Yet there was nothing but calm and serene acceptance and joyful celebration of the Feast of the Assumption.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

Jay,

Thanks for your post. Can you provide some verification of the date the feast began (ie. a website or document that addresses this)?

 

[Good_Fella]

“From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name.”
[Luke 1:48-49]

It is God who has “exalted” Mary from the beginning, not us.

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalen. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold your son,” and to the disciple, “Behold your mother.” From that time on, the disciple took her into her home. [John 19:25-27]

The Gospel does not record the presence of biological siblings of Jesus near the cross among the others who were present there. If Jesus had had bilogical brothers and sisters, they would surely have been mentioned to be present at the crucifixion of their brother accompanying their mother. The Jewish family at this time was an extended family, and events such as a death in the family brought the entire family together. The brothers and sisters of Jesus, who are mentioned earlier, are his relatives and their close friends who form this extended family. The close disciples of Jesus would have been a welcomed addition to the family according to Jewish custom. As we can see, it is John and the other Marys who stood with our Blessed Mother, not Jesus’ alleged siblings. Finally, if Jesus did in fact have siblings, they would have been responsible for taking custody of their mother after the death of their elder brother, for Mary was a widow. Instead, Jesus gives custody of his mother to his beloved disciple. Jesus had no siblings.

And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace, and of prayers; and they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only son, and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of the firstborn. [Zechariah 12:10]

This prophecy of Zechariah confirms that Jesus was “an only son” in his immediate family. So his rank as “the firstborn” could not possibly mean that Mary and Joseph had other children in succession. A first child carried a very special significance to Jewish parents in biblical times, and it is the case even today. A mother’s firstborn son was “consecrated” to divine service. The Israelites raised their firstborn sons to the life of priesthood. And we all know how Christ fulfilled this prophecy concerning his priestly role in God’s plan for our salvation.

“And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced.”

This is another instance of why the Church has a Sacred Magisterium - to reject and condemn false teachings and heresy and guide us in all truth as Jesus promised and assured us. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against us. The Catholic Church survived the so-called reformation while Protestantism disasterously became irreparably fragmented - a sign that Luther did not take Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the charism of infallibilty with him. Before Protestants challenge Catholic beliefs, they should first face each other and try to resolve their own essential doctrinal differences between their numerous denominations. As a unity, Protestantism would have more credibility and justification in questioning Catholic beliefs and condemning the Church’s infallible teachings.

“It was not enough that the conception of Jesus take place without a male role, for if a woman who had previously known a man had conceived him even through the Holy Spirit, who would ever have believed that the child that was born was of the Holy Spirit? For nature knows no birth that is not besmirched with stain. For the same reason she had to be ever virgin, she who bore the one in whom there could not even be the least suspicion of blemish. For the birth of Jesus to be absolutely pure of every stain, Mary herself had to be free of any pollution of normal child-bearing.” [Protestant Reformer, Urlich Zwingli]

Why is it that his followers today do not agree with him on the perpetual virginity of Mary? Is it because the Protestant tradition is a pick-and-choose-whatever-you-want-to-believe-in faith? Should we suppose it is safe to select whatever teachings appeal to us from among the Protestant denominations, because of the inerrancy and infallibilty of the Holy Bible? This is essentially the Protestant rationale. But which denomination can claim that they have correctly interpreted the bible? From where does one denomination get its authority? From the Bible? The Bible does not teach that. Since the Bible is infallible and inerrant, there must obviously be a body of authority which can infallibly and unerringly interpret it when formulating Church doctrines: this body is the Sacred Magisterium of the One, Holy, and Apostolic Catholic Church.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Mannyfit75]

Don’t you remember? He said where two or three are gathered in His name? There was a thriving community in Ephesus…

I remember. thanks for clarification.

 

[zemi]

Jay,

Thanks for your post. Can you provide some verification of the date the feast began (ie. a website or document that addresses this)?

Jay will maybe give you something as well

newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

 

[justasking4]

part 1

Yes, the inspired inerrant scriptures are considered to have greater authority than extra biblical documents. But they do not have more authority than the teaching authority that wrote and canonized them.

Are you claiming that your leaders are greater in authority than the Scriptures?

Everything that the Church has taught with regard to faith and morals, from the first day of Pentecost when she was born, up until the present day is inspired and inerrant.

What parts did they not put in writing?

[/QUOTE]

 

[justasking4]

part 2
You

are right. What makes it true is the testimony of Jesus and the HS.

If the Church can err, then Jesus is a liar.

This does not follow. Jesus, because He is God cannot lie. The church which is made up of fallen men, can lie and have lied at times.

You can read the references in the Catechism.

I am not sure what this is responding to, but I can say that the authority of the Apostles to teach was passed on to their successors.

Paul in Ephesians lays out the responsiblity of pastors who are to be teachers also.

You say this in an accusatory tone, as if it were something bad?
Jesus commissioned them to preach and teach…of COURSE they are guilty of it! It was his INTENTION that they should teach these things. All of this happened before one word of your NT was written.

I agree there was oral teaching going on by the apostles. However, the only teachings we have of the apostles is only found in the written NT. Its that we have to deal with.

Since you have rejected the teaching authority appointed by Christ, it can only be expected that you would not be able to distinguish true teaching from false.

What i reject are the false teachings of your church. These false teachings are not grounded in the scriptures but are the speculations of men. The Scriptures warned that there would be false teachings in the church. The marian dogmas are one manifestations of that.

Since you are convinced that Jesus has lied, what is your intention now? Why are you here on this thread? You have already made up your mind to reject Jesus, and those whom he has sent??

Your making a category mistake when you say to reject the teachings of your church is to reject Christ. They are not the same thing. Jesus cannot lie because He is God and infallible. The church, which is made of fallen-sinful men can make mistakes. I’m here on this thread because the truth matters.

The Church does not “keep” Mary a virgin,she did that herself by the Grace of God, and the protection of Joseph.

Your church can say this but it cannot support this with scripture. The scriptures clearly show otherwise.

The major doctrine that is impacted is the one you have already rejected, that of the Apostolic Succession and their Authority given by Christ to teach. It is by that authority we are taught that Mary was ever virgin. Rejecting those whom Christ sent is the same as rejecting Christ. That is why the Church states it is essential for salvation, because those rejecting the teaching are rejecting Jesus.

I reject your church’ authority to always teach truthfully since it has been found to circumvent the Scriptures on a number of its teachings.

 

[justasking4]

QUOTE=Strider;2403301]All of these posts going 'round & 'round.
Protestants, who believe ONLY what’s in the Bible, even though the Bible nowhere says everything we need is in the Bible. Hey…that makes Sola Scriptura a tradition!
Anyway, they say that it doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that Mary was assumed into heaven. They’re right.
It also doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that she died. So, whichever way you go, it’s unBiblical.
I choose to believe that she was assumed into heaven, based on Tradition and patristic writing.
Using only the Bible, prove me wrong.

Since you are making the claim she was assumed into heaven, then you need to show in the scriptures where that is the case.
Do you happen to know when this “tradition” of her assumption was first mentioned and by whom?

 

[justasking4]

Justasking4, are you open to discussion and possible rethinking of your position when given a reason from Scripture alone?

Are you also open to rethinking your position? I am if it can be shown from scripture that such a doctrine was taught there. Then i would be forced to agree with those who believe that she was assumed based on the scriptures.

You know we only adhere to tradition becasue the “inspired-inerrant” Bible tells us so.

That depends. If someone comes to me a says such a thing i will ask where in scripture. Secondly if they tell me to beleive some teaching of theirs i will ask for the scriptural support for the doctrine and practice. This is why it is absolutely important to know the scriptures well and compare all doctrines by it. This is the only way that will you not to be decieved by those who claim to speak by authority.

 

[Mannyfit75]

part 1

Are you claiming that your leaders are greater in authority than the Scriptures?

 

[zemi]

Justasking4,

Have you read the link I provided? (catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9205fea2.asp)

 

[Milliardo]

The Scriptures are the only inspired-inerrant documents we have. Their authority is greater than any other non-bibilcal document-teaching.
Do you believe that everything the church for the 1st 4 centuries was the truth?

You would have to contend then that early Christians were wrong when they saw the authority of non-Biblical writings then? Many writings before the compilation of the Bible were considered Scripture; conversely, a number of those in the Bible were doubted over. So do I believe that everything the Church taught the first four centuries were true? Of course–even most Protestants never questioned the early Church Councils. I wonder why calling Mary as “Theotokos” would be a problem then.

 

[guanophore]

My issue with this is that it takes several centuries after the death of the apostles before there is any evidence of the assumption.

Neither is the hypostatic union, the Trinity, the Canon, and a number of other essential aspects of the faith.

Your comment about Mary’s death not being recorded in scripture is not applicable to a sola scriptura argument as Mary’s death isn’t a matter of faith.

We are not disputing her death, we are disputing her Assumption. That is MOST DEFINITELY a matter of faith.

 

[Milliardo]

Should we not understand this title to mean that she was the mother of the human Jesus since God cannot have a mother?

As Elizabeth said, “Why should this be, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Elizabeth was inspired by the Holy Spirit then to say those words. She recognized the Lord in Mary’s womb–not merely the humanity in Jesus, but the divinity of Him as well, or else she would not address Mary as “the mother of my Lord”. Another thing you forget is the prophecy in Isaiah, also written in Matthew: Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means “God is with us.” It is important to note that it does not say that the child borne is only human, but it is already implied that He also has the divine before His birth. Or consider the salutation of the angel in the same passage where Elizabeth said thus: Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." and The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. (Luke 1:30-33, 35) You can see here that the angel already shows us that Mary was to bear Jesus, not just His human attributes, but His divine one as well.

 

[guanophore]

Are you claiming that your leaders are greater in authority than the Scriptures?

No. We recognize that Jesus told His Apostles everything, and gave them complete authority. They then passed this authority to their successors, just as He instructed them. They, and some of their successors, wrote down some of the Teachings, which is where were get our NT.

Can you give me a couple of examples of things that your church teaches that is inspired-inerrant that is not in the Scriptures? For example, is pope Pius 12th teaching that mary was assumed into heaven bodily an inspired-inerrant teaching?

Yes, as are the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the canon of scripture, and the Apostolic Succession. Most of the teachings are also found in scripture, at least as seeds, or implicit.

This is incorrect. The Scriptures derives it inspiration and inerrancy not from any church but from God Himself.

Yes, but God chose to work through His Church to write, preserve, discern, and protect His Holy Word.
justasking4;2403668:

Not so. There are many references that Mary certainly did have children of her own. To say otherwise is to twist the scriptures to say something that it does not.

Clearly you are uneducated on this matter. It belongs in another thread, but before you start a new one, I recommend that you search a few keywords. We have addressed this ad nauseum here.

You have misinterpreted the scriptures, most likely in good faith, and most likely because you are separated from the teaching authority that Christ set up for His Church.

Distinctions must be kept in order here otherwise it will lead to a false understanding.

This is very evident in your posts.

Since God cannot have a mother, it is better to think that Mary is the mother of the human (nature part) of Jesus.

This is Nestorian heresy. I put a link above that addresses this. You are about 1700 centuries behind in proposing this error.

What parts did they not put in writing?

I made a short list above on this. It should go in another thread, but this topic too has been addressed ad nauseum. Search Apostolic Authority, or PM me and I will send you the relevant threads. It is wearisome to repeatedly refute the heresies, but we will try to be patient. Personallly, I think you reallly are justasking.

 

[guanophore]

If the Church teaches error, then Jesus is a liar.

This does not follow. Jesus, because He is God cannot lie. The church which is made up of fallen men, can lie and have lied at times.

I don’t believe He does. That is why I believe He kept His word when He said He would be with us till the end of the age, and that He would send His spirit to guide us into all truth, He has done so.

Paul in Ephesians lays out the responsiblity of pastors who are to be teachers also.

Paul was Catholic, so he did not teach anything that is different than Catholic doctrine.

I agree there was oral teaching going on by the apostles. However, the only teachings we have of the apostles is only found in the written NT. Its that we have to deal with.

Maybe that is all YOU have. That is why we say that the CC has the “fullness” of the truth, because we have the scripture, and we also have the Apostolic Tradition.

What i reject are the false teachings of your church. These false teachings are not grounded in the scriptures but are the speculations of men. The Scriptures warned that there would be false teachings in the church. The marian dogmas are one manifestations of that.

Suit yourself. We know that the Teachings preceeded the scripture, and that the Teachings are grounded in Christ, and in the Apostolic preaching. Some of those teachings can be found in the written word. If you wish to reject the Teaching, your blood is upon your own head.

Your making a category mistake when you say to reject the teachings of your church is to reject Christ. They are not the same thing. Jesus cannot lie because He is God and infallible. The church, which is made of fallen-sinful men can make mistakes. I’m here on this thread because the truth matters.

Your church can say this but it cannot support this with scripture. The scriptures clearly show otherwise.

I reject your church’ authority to always teach truthfully since it has been found to circumvent the Scriptures on a number of its teachings.

 

[guanophore]

Are you also open to rethinking your position?

I rethink it every time I read and respond to your posts!
justasking4;2403719:

I am if it can be shown from scripture that such a doctrine was taught there. Then i would be forced to agree with those who believe that she was assumed based on the scriptures.

It would not be appropriate to do anything that would reinforce your “sola scriptura” error. Not only that, it would not be appropriate to try to “force” you to agree to any of Jesus’ teaching. Those who come must be drawn by the Father, and come in faith, without which, it is impossible to please Him. You have already made it clear that you reject the Teachers He has appointed.

Quote:
You know we only adhere to tradition becasue the “inspired-inerrant” Bible tells us so.

Where does it say this is the Scripture? If you are thinking of 2 Thes 2:15 as a support for catholic traditions that won’t do because when you look at the context of that verse it says nothing about that.

Really? It seems to me that Paul is saying that both are sources of Apostolic Authoritative teaching and that they are equal. You are behaving like Diot’rephes, who rejects the Apostolic authority.

2 Tim 2:1-3
2:1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and **what you have heard **from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

The writings were a supplement to the oral teaching:
1 Tim 3:14-16

14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

The church, not the scriptures, is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Nowhere in the scriptures does it teach that it is the sole source of authority. In fact, when there is a dispute, it is to be taken to the church!

Matt 18:17
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church"

the authority belonged to the Apostles, which they passed on through the process of ordination:

3 John 9

9 I have written something to the church; but Diot’rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority."

The written word proceeds out from the Apostolic authority.

That depends. If someone comes to me a says such a thing i will ask where in scripture. Secondly if they tell me to beleive some teaching of theirs i will ask for the scriptural support for the doctrine and practice. This is why it is absolutely important to know the scriptures well and compare all doctrines by it. This is the only way that will you not to be decieved by those who claim to speak by authority.

You are right that it is essential to know the scriptures, so that one can better discern error from truth. But you are wrong that it is the “only way” that carries authority. If the Bible was never preserved, there would still be infallible authority in the Apostolic Teaching, just as there was during the three years of Jesus’ public ministry, and in the 400 years before the canon was closed.