Faith and authority

[Brother-Mike]

Note: this thread is a branching of the discussion here between @fhansen, myself, and indirectly many others. All are welcome of course, but be forewarned, if you don't at least have a 14-inch beard as long as Calvin's then I will automatically presume you are incorrect, always, in everything.

Okay, in terms of authority then, let me walk through some scenarios and you can kindly tell me where you disagree:

1. The bible says "ABC is true", unambiguously. Do you look to anyone before you believe it? My answer: No.
2. The bible says "ABC is true", unambiguously, but some guy with a pointy hat / Scottish accent / sub-14-inch beard says "ABC is not true". Who do you believe? My answer: I am free to review his claim, measuring his reasoning (ideally he cited scripture and it isn't just a novel, unsupported theory). Ultimately I am free to decide if I accept his claim, or reject it and stand by the bible's position. Certainly if he had no scriptural citations then I would at best put his claim into something like a "good theory but biblically unsupported" bucket, and I would argue his claim to others with tentativeness, knowing that the claim is on extremely shaky ground.
3. Same as scenario 2, except not even a biblical claim - so it's just pure theory on behalf of the interlocutor. I guess here I could have just combined this with scenario 2, since I think my thought process would be identical, boiling down to the veracity of his claim. Lurking behind both of these scenarios is my own freedom to accept or reject, and acknowledging that this opens me up to judging incorrectly. But it also puts the onus of argumentation on the interlocutor and thus compels him to be clear, precise and convincing. The converse error would be that I am forced to believe his claim because he is sprinkled with Fairy Dust of Authority. Only my bible is sprinkled with Fairy Dust. And possibly has a picture of a unicorn on the cover, but that's for a separate discussion...

My two cents at least...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Note: this thread is a branching of the discussion here between @fhansen, myself, and indirectly many others. All are welcome of course, but be forewarned, if you don't at least have a 14-inch beard as long as Calvin's then I will automatically presume you are incorrect, always, in everything.

Okay, in terms of authority then, let me walk through some scenarios and you can kindly tell me where you disagree:

1. The bible says "ABC is true", unambiguously. Do you look to anyone before you believe it? My answer: No.
2. The bible says "ABC is true", unambiguously, but some guy with a pointy hat / Scottish accent / sub-14-inch beard says "ABC is not true". Who do you believe? My answer: I am free to review his claim, measuring his reasoning (ideally he cited scripture and it isn't just a novel, unsupported theory). Ultimately I am free to decide if I accept his claim, or reject it and stand by the bible's position. Certainly if he had no scriptural citations then I would at best put his claim into something like a "good theory but biblically unsupported" bucket, and I would argue his claim to others with tentativeness, knowing that the claim is on extremely shaky ground.
3. Same as scenario 2, except not even a biblical claim - so it's just pure theory on behalf of the interlocutor. I guess here I could have just combined this with scenario 2, since I think my thought process would be identical, boiling down to the veracity of his claim. Lurking behind both of these scenarios is my own freedom to accept or reject, and acknowledging that this opens me up to judging incorrectly. But it also puts the onus of argumentation on the interlocutor and thus compels him to be clear, precise and convincing. The converse error would be that I am forced to believe his claim because he is sprinkled with Fairy Dust of Authority. Only my bible is sprinkled with Fairy Dust. And possibly has a picture of a unicorn on the cover, but that's for a separate discussion...

My two cents at least...

Since I shave, I'll refrain from sharing my agreement with your post ...

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Scenerio 4 the early church fathers ( some did, some didn't ) so that is the truth with or without scripture. Considering the participants I would predict a religious war of dogmatics, rituals or solas.

 

[fhansen]

Note: this thread is a branching of the discussion here between @fhansen, myself, and indirectly many others. All are welcome of course, but be forewarned, if you don't at least have a 14-inch beard as long as Calvin's then I will automatically presume you are incorrect, always, in everything.

Okay, in terms of authority then, let me walk through some scenarios and you can kindly tell me where you disagree:

1. The bible says "ABC is true", unambiguously. Do you look to anyone before you believe it? My answer: No.
2. The bible says "ABC is true", unambiguously, but some guy with a pointy hat / Scottish accent / sub-14-inch beard says "ABC is not true". Who do you believe? My answer: I am free to review his claim, measuring his reasoning (ideally he cited scripture and it isn't just a novel, unsupported theory). Ultimately I am free to decide if I accept his claim, or reject it and stand by the bible's position. Certainly if he had no scriptural citations then I would at best put his claim into something like a "good theory but biblically unsupported" bucket, and I would argue his claim to others with tentativeness, knowing that the claim is on extremely shaky ground.
3. Same as scenario 2, except not even a biblical claim - so it's just pure theory on behalf of the interlocutor. I guess here I could have just combined this with scenario 2, since I think my thought process would be identical, boiling down to the veracity of his claim. Lurking behind both of these scenarios is my own freedom to accept or reject, and acknowledging that this opens me up to judging incorrectly. But it also puts the onus of argumentation on the interlocutor and thus compels him to be clear, precise and convincing. The converse error would be that I am forced to believe his claim because he is sprinkled with Fairy Dust of Authority. Only my bible is sprinkled with Fairy Dust. And possibly has a picture of a unicorn on the cover, but that's for a separate discussion...

My two cents at least...

Those who adhere to Sripture alone cannot even agree on a basic matter of soteriology, on baptismal regeneration, each offering plausible enough Scripture-based POVs in support of opposing views. Meanwhile it was never even a question among the early churches and fathers.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Those who adhere to Sripture alone cannot even agree on a basic matter of soteriology, on baptismal regeneration, each offering plausible enough Scripture-based POVs in support of opposing views. Meanwhile it was never even a question among the early churches and fathers.

I would go even further - having spent some months now in these forums I'm pretty sure not even ANY SINGLE TWO INDIVIDUALS hold the same faith position in even a handful of key doctrine, let alone the full breadth of Christian faith.

But so what? If the fundamental distinguishing factor in one's authority is to choose between personal/scriptural authority OR granted authority to some third-party then so be it. I myself don't consider this to be a deal-breaker presuming that the core tenets of the faith are individually held.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Scenerio 4 the early church fathers ( some did, some didn't ) so that is the truth with or without scripture. Considering the participants I would predict a religious war of dogmatics, rituals or solas.

I grant the Pope, or the early church fathers, or my dog barking out a biblical claim for that matter all exactly the same authority: I'm all ears. Convince me with your dazzling wisdom and rhetoric flourishes, swaddle me in typology and metaphorical harmonies. I just may buy what you're selling

 

[QvQ]

Truth must reflect an objective reality. Sola Scriptura is a match to my reality. I noted that fact when first I read the Bible.
The authority I recognize is objective reality. The reflection of that reality is the Word of God found in the Bible, therefore, as a being who partially relies on words to organize and understand all things material and spiritual, I rely on the Bible as the final authority.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The bible says "ABC is true", unambiguously. Do you look to anyone before you believe it? My answer: No.

"This is my body" said the Lord.

I'm all ears. Convince me with your dazzling wisdom and rhetoric flourishes, swaddle me in typology and metaphorical harmonies. I just may buy what you're selling

"This is my blood of the new covenant" said the Lord.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The authority I recognize is objective reality.

Quoted for honesty. Sola reality.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I grant the Pope, or the early church fathers, or my dog barking out a biblical claim for that matter all exactly the same authority: I'm all ears. Convince me with your dazzling wisdom and rhetoric flourishes, swaddle me in typology and metaphorical harmonies. I just may buy what you're selling

What is authority and I will not touch that anointed, like I would not touch that apple but since we all have fallen out of the tree I will try to keep to spiritual truth. I agree with flansen that Protestants are all over the map and I agree that Catholics hold to fairy tails. Ok that's going a bit far. But mostly I agree that what is in keeping are the fundamentals that hold to salvation that we all need. That's about as far as I'm willing to go. I feel like a fence sitter in this war, but it's a history that repeats itself. They cannot kill God's people, but when both sides align themselves against each other, where is the Father? Christ is outside the camp. Both Mary and Jesus were recieved up from the shame.

 

[fhansen]

I would go even further - having spent some months now in these forums I'm pretty sure not even ANY SINGLE TWO INDIVIDUALS hold the same faith position in even a handful of key doctrine, let alone the full breadth of Christian faith.

But so what? If the fundamental distinguishing factor in one's authority is to choose between personal/scriptural authority OR granted authority to some third-party then so be it. I myself don't consider this to be a deal-breaker presuming that the core tenets of the faith are individually held.

And I can appreciate that. We all have to do the best we can with what we know and have at our disposal-we're called to do that, in fact, and to not go against our own consciences on the matter. I finally gave up on SS more or less simultaneous to coming to appreciate the basic teachings of the early church, especially on justification, to my surprise -and finding that those teachings have carried through until this day.

 

[Tolworth John]

The bible says "ABC is true", unambiguously. Do you look to anyone before you believe it? My answer: No.

I be,I've the bible according to how the passage is written.
Example John 10: 9 I am the gate.
This is a parable, Jesus is not a gate.
Rev 1 has Jesus with a sword coming out of his mouth, again not literal.
We read scripture and use normal rules of literature to understand it.
Prose is prose, poetry is often very descriptive, prophecy often uses ivid imagery.
We have to u derstan what each passage is saying, to whom, how they understood it and how it applies to us.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

And I can appreciate that. We all have to do the best we can with what we know and have at our disposal-we're called to do that, in fact, and to not go against our own consciences on the matter. I finally gave up on SS more or less simultaneous to coming to appreciate the basic teachings of the early church, especially on justification, to my surprise -and finding that those teachings have carried through until this day.

Doesnt your justification mean what sanctification means to someone else? To me being justified means the world is so because of what Jesus accomplished. Being sanctified means the two (sanctified and sanctifyer) becoming one. I believe that is what you deem consecration. So lingo really doesn't go very far. Babble is still in effect that way.

 

[Brother-Mike]

"This is my body" said the Lord.

"This is my blood of the new covenant" said the Lord.

Guessing that you're raising these as examples of the "less than unambiguous" subset then I would agree. And in this case then I can turn to third-party analyses of my choosing. Maybe most resonant would be Calvin's thoughts. Maybe Francis of Assisi. Maybe Richard Rohr. Maybe Confucius.

Maybe all of the above, on different levels. These are complex texts and can bear the load of multivariate analyses.

 

[timothyu]

I presume this is in reference to religion and theology rather than simply listening to what Jesus had to say.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Writing of these two statements

• "This is my body" said the Lord.
• "This is my blood of the new covenant" said the Lord.

@Brother-Mike says

These are complex texts and can bear the load of multivariate analyses.

The statements appear to be very simple; the first is 4 words

"this (which refers to bread) is my (which refers to the Lord Jesus Christ) body"​

The second is 8 words

"This (referring to a chalice filled with wine) is my (referring to the Lord Jesus Christ) blood of the new covenant"​

is it the word "is" that can bear the load of multivariate analysis?

One wonders, if these statements are "complex texts", what would constitute a simple unambiguous statement?

 

[HTacianas]

Note: this thread is a branching of the discussion here between @fhansen, myself, and indirectly many others. All are welcome of course, but be forewarned, if you don't at least have a 14-inch beard as long as Calvin's then I will automatically presume you are incorrect, always, in everything.

Okay, in terms of authority then, let me walk through some scenarios and you can kindly tell me where you disagree:

1. The bible says "ABC is true", unambiguously. Do you look to anyone before you believe it? My answer: No.
2. The bible says "ABC is true", unambiguously, but some guy with a pointy hat / Scottish accent / sub-14-inch beard says "ABC is not true". Who do you believe? My answer: I am free to review his claim, measuring his reasoning (ideally he cited scripture and it isn't just a novel, unsupported theory). Ultimately I am free to decide if I accept his claim, or reject it and stand by the bible's position. Certainly if he had no scriptural citations then I would at best put his claim into something like a "good theory but biblically unsupported" bucket, and I would argue his claim to others with tentativeness, knowing that the claim is on extremely shaky ground.
3. Same as scenario 2, except not even a biblical claim - so it's just pure theory on behalf of the interlocutor. I guess here I could have just combined this with scenario 2, since I think my thought process would be identical, boiling down to the veracity of his claim. Lurking behind both of these scenarios is my own freedom to accept or reject, and acknowledging that this opens me up to judging incorrectly. But it also puts the onus of argumentation on the interlocutor and thus compels him to be clear, precise and convincing. The converse error would be that I am forced to believe his claim because he is sprinkled with Fairy Dust of Authority. Only my bible is sprinkled with Fairy Dust. And possibly has a picture of a unicorn on the cover, but that's for a separate discussion...

My two cents at least...

Ultimately the argument reaches an Ecumenical Council and the matter is resolved. But that is a very long, involved process and there hasn't been an Ecumenical Council in centuries. But what has already been decided is accepted. There can be no "new truth". Truth is what it has always been. Thankfully, I don't find those kinds of argument in the Orthodox Church because what the bible means has already been settled a long time ago and there is no sense re-visiting the matter. Sadly, too many people want to do just that. They hold their own individual opinions over what has already been decided and go off on their own and do something else.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Ultimately the argument reaches an Ecumenical Council and the matter is resolved. But that is a very long, involved process and there hasn't been an Ecumenical Council in centuries. But what has already been decided is accepted. There can be no "new truth". Truth is what it has always been. Thankfully, I don't find those kinds of argument in the Orthodox Church because what the bible means has already been settled a long time ago and there is no sense re-visiting the matter. Sadly, too many people want to do just that. They hold their own individual opinions over what has already been decided and go off on their own and do something else.

Much like the Pharisees who belonged to the Levitical system hasn't moved outside the camp. But each to their own. Ecumenical (C)hurch decisions are not held by all of the (C)hurch and I believe that is the point. Centuries ago bring us to 1245 the Magna Carta and all kinds of reform that the Reformed are are Protesting against still.

 

[HTacianas]

Much like the Pharisees who belonged to the Levitical system hasn't moved outside the camp. But each to their own. Ecumenical (C)hurch decisions are not held by all of the (C)hurch and I believe that is the point. Centuries ago bring us to 1245 the Magna Carta and all kinds of reform that the Reformed are are Protesting against still.

That is a case of someone going off on their own to do their own thing. Jesus said to his apostles:

Mat 18:19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.

Mat 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

That is the authority given to the apostles and handed down to their successors.

 

[fhansen]

Doesnt your justification mean what sanctification means to someone else? To me being justified means the world is so because of what Jesus accomplished. Being sanctified means the two (sanctified and sanctifyer) becoming one. I believe that is what you deem consecration. So lingo really doesn't go very far. Babble is still in effect that way.

Folks can babble on and debate forever, which we tend to do, but much babbling erupted with the Reformation, often from and between the Reformers, and in any case salvation has always been seen as a journey, one that begins with grace, promoting faith, resulting in justification as we enter union with God, the source of justice/righteousness for man. This is the beginning of our salvation, not the end.

There's no technical difference between justification and sanctification- sanctification is simply the continuation of the process begun at justification that has it's end in eternal life. The novel error of the reformers was to separate being made righteous from actually being rightoeus, with a declared righteousness now sufficient to make us right-and salvageable-in the eyes of God. But that, then, prompts a discussion on whether or not we can sin wantonly and still enter heaven, with all kinds of answers forthcoming on that one. But in truth, justification plants a seed of righteousness, grace, the life of God in us, and that must be embraced, expressed, invested, and grown, maturing into eternal life as best possible in whatever time we have. So the church can teach:

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.

1995 The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man," justification entails the sanctification of his whole being:

Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification. . . . But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. Rom 6:19,22