What is biblical authority...?

[GDL]

Mystery babylon, deifying man through his interpretation of a book that has been elevated to the status of God.

In other words you don't think much of the Book that Jesus, for one, as Clare earlier pointed out quite well, had ultimate regard for.

If we can correctly interpret/understand for example that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and we can pass on that information to others, then we are passing on Truth from Scripture and the mind and Word of God with all of it's power and authority accorded it by God. Some statements seem very simple to understand and pass on and not too mysterious at all.

Your allegation of deifying man in this process is an absurdity, assuming the statement(s) written and read originated in the mind and came from the mouth of God. As such is the case, it is a subordination to God to accept and pass on His Truth and just the opposite of deifying man.

There are plenty here that speak of the Spirit of God indwelling us and God's Spirit's illumination of God's Word. This hardly elevates a book to the status of God or even being remotely all that He could teach us.

I've little doubt it could be interesting to hear the ultimate views of someone with such little regard for Scripture - God's Word - and who makes such charges against those who regard His Book as being from Him, and see Him as being the ultimate Authority of what it truly says & means.

 

[Clare73]

Lol yea you are correct but someone who doesn’t know how to do math can be blamed for not getting the correct answer in your eyes?

You learn it by receiving it.

Those who refuse to receive arithmetic are to blame for not learning it.

Seek God and his Spirit to learn to receive/believe his word in the Scriptures.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Thomas was in unbelief regarding their testimony.

Jesus gave him the proof he needed regarding their testimony.

Seek God and his Spirit for the proof you need regarding the NT writers' testimony.

Ahhh I see. Thanks

 

[zoidar]

Guys, girls, I'll be back tomorrow with some replies. Bedtime!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

In other words you don't think much of the Book that Jesus, for one, as Clare earlier pointed out quite well, had ultimate regard for.

If we can correctly interpret/understand for example that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and we can pass on that information to others, then we are passing on Truth from Scripture and the mind and Word of God with all of it's power and authority accorded it by God. Some statements seem very simple to understand and pass on and not too mysterious at all.

Your allegation of deifying man in this process is an absurdity, assuming the statement(s) written and read originated in the mind and came from the mouth of God. As such is the case, it is a subordination to God to accept and pass on His Truth and just the opposite of deifying man.

There are plenty here that speak of the Spirit of God indwelling us and God's Spirit's illumination of God's Word. This hardly elevates a book to the status of God or even being remotely all that He could teach us.

I've little doubt it could be interesting to hear the ultimate views of someone with such little regard for Scripture - God's Word - and who makes such charges against those who regard His Book as being from Him, and see Him as being the ultimate Authority of what it truly says & means.

An example of what I am talking about is the below quoted post.

The bible says Jesus is the word of God, but it has been confused today to always mean the bible when the phrase word of God is used. Thus resulting in the deification of a book.

Word of God Eternal
Word of God Incarnate
Word of God written--"the book"
Are you sure that's what causes it?

 

[Saint Steven]

The Church is not removed from Jesus because the apostles were hand picked and taught by Jesus. The New Testament was written by these same people, so you could say that the NT is twice removed from Jesus the ultimate authority. But just as we would say the Holy Spirit caused these writings to contain what God wanted, so too the Holy Spirit worked with the apostles and works with their successors.

I enjoy reading your posts. You have such a different way of looking at things than I do.

What do you mean when you say "The Church"? I suppose it depends on the context. You seem to see the church as a single organism. When I say "The Church", I am usually talking about the institution. I don't think that is what you are writing about.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What is biblical authority when differing denominational interpretations are based on tradition, experience, and even rational thought? (decision of a council)

Consider what 1 Corinthians chapters twelve through fourteen mean to a:
- Charismatic/Pentecostal/Continuationist
- Baptist/Calvinist/Cessationist
- Catholic/Orthodox
- or any other denominations

What is the basis for these denominational differences? What is the biblical authority in these cases? (since none of them agree)

Some agree on some points so it’s not correct to say none agree. You know, politicians don’t agree on the best course of action and no one accused them of the things christians who don’t agree are accused of. Why do unbelievers accept that doctors don’t always agree and engineers don’t always agree and not accuse them of their field being essentially bunk because they’re not unified all the time on any point. No one says because immunologists don’t always agree so they never agree? Why is the standard so high for men who believe God as though once a person starts this journey, they suddenly know everything about it?

 

[Saint Steven]

This is why I think it is important to examine the earliest church writings to help give us insight on how the scriptures were interpreted by the men who were taught directly by the apostles because these men received a lot more information from the apostles than we have from the scriptures.

Good post, thanks.
Why do you suppose those writings were not included in the canon of scripture?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Some agree on some points so it’s not correct to say none agree. You know, politicians don’t agree on the best course of action and no one accused them of the things christians who don’t agree are accused of. Why do unbelievers accept that doctors don’t always agree and engineers don’t always agree and not accuse them of their field being essentially bunk because they’re not unified all the time on any point. No one says because immunologists don’t always agree they never agree? Why is the standard so high for men who believe God as though once a person starts this journey, they suddenly know everything about it?

I think it’s because God is the ultimate of all things.God is the truth. So when group of people who all claim to have a relationship with God disagree on what Gods word says how how it should be lived out it can make a lot of people pause because again we are talking about God. We should try to be clear on all those other things as well. If we are not 100% sure about what we claim of God we should be honest enough to say so.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I think it’s because God is the ultimate of all things.God is the truth. So when group of people who all claim to have a relationship with God disagree on what Gods word says how how it should be lived out it can make a lot of people pause because again we are talking about God. We should try to be clear on all those other things as well. If we are not 100% sure about what we claim of God we should be honest enough to say so.

First, not that many claim to have a relationship with God who speak with an air of authority on the Bible. Second, fewer who do so try to live it out. They don’t speak about how they live it out but about technical terms successfully separating their real choices from its teaching. It’s like the spiritual believer who asked Jesus just who is his neighbor that he has apply the teaching to.

 

[Saint Steven]

Roman church claims of apostolic authority are bogus.

The Orthodox Church states the first RC pope was Linus, and that peter was never pope in Rome - and scripture proves Peter was never part of the gentile Roman church, since he was the apostle to the Jews.

They are pretty adamant about it. I would guess that they kept records of these things.

The bigger question is why? But they have their reasons and apologetics for it. And as was discussed earlier. The Apostolic succession pedigree has produced some mutts. So, they have to continually clean up the breed. (as it were)

As a Protestant, it is interesting, but mostly meaningless to me. It is however, very important to them. So... I listen and learn in order to understand.

 

[Saint Steven]

Roman church claims of apostolic authority are bogus.

The Orthodox Church states the first RC pope was Linus, and that peter was never pope in Rome - and scripture proves Peter was never part of the gentile Roman church, since he was the apostle to the Jews.

Is the issue with the first Pope your only problem with Apostolic Succession?

 

[Saint Steven]

Do you think the theology of some of the major branches of Christianity might be an obstacle to salvation?

No. I think the theology of ALL of the major branches of Christianity are an obstacle to salvation. Name a denomination that doesn't teach "believe or burn". (but not in so few words) That seems like an obstacle to me.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I enjoy reading your posts. You have such a different way of looking at things than I do.

What do you mean when you say "The Church"? I suppose it depends on the context. You seem to see the church as a single organism. When I say "The Church", I am usually talking about the institution. I don't think that is what you are writing about.

As an organism, which has an institutional appendage. So not just an institution. The Bride of Christ is one way of identifying who that organism is.

As you know, I do tend to identify the Church with the Catholic Church. But in a fuzzy logic sort of way. The technical language is that Christ's Church subsists in the Catholic Church. Which means that the Church is a bit wider than just the Catholic Church. I certainly want to include the Orthodox in that. And a little bit more. But it's complicated. The following gets close to the Catholic understanding of her relation to the whole of the Church. It may not please you but it is what it is. Christ's Church Subsists in the Catholic Church | EWTN

 

[Saint Steven]

The Bride of Christ is one way of identifying who that organism is.

On that point we agree.
I would more likely call it the body of Christ. But that might not work for a Catholic. Since Eucharist is the body and blood. (confusing to call the church the body of Christ) ???

Where we probably wouldn't agree is who is included in the Bride (body) of Christ. Like you said, it may not please me, but it is what it is.

1 Corinthians 12:27 NIV
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

Ephesians 4:11-13 NIV
So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

 

[chevyontheriver]

On that point we agree.
I would more likely call it the body of Christ. But that might not work for a Catholic. Since Eucharist is the body and blood. (confusing to call the church the body of Christ) ???

No, calling her the Body of Christ also works for Catholics. We can handle lots of metaphors simultaneously. Not that it is the only model of the Church, but it is a big one. See Avery Dulles' 'Models of the Church'.

Where we probably wouldn't agree is who is included in the Bride (body) of Christ. Like you said, it may not please me, but it is what it is.

1 Corinthians 12:27 NIV
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

Ephesians 4:11-13 NIV
So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

No again, we mostly agree on who the individual members of the Church are. Those who have been baptized have been baptized into Christ and are thus part of the body of Christ. That because it is Christ that baptizes through the minister of baptism. Sacraments work through the power of Christ. And since we recognize almost every Protestant baptism we recognize almost every Protestant believer as a member of the same body of Christ. Where we almost certainly will differ is that Catholics aren't going to be accepting of Protestant groups as Churches that subsist in the Church of Christ. We accept the Orthodox in that but that's about it. We see elements of the Church within the Protestant groups but also things missing, like a bunch of sacraments. So it is a positive view towards other Christian persons but a guarded one towards their institutional manifestations.

 

[GingerBeer]

What is biblical authority when differing denominational interpretations are based on tradition, experience, and even rational thought? (decision of a council)

Consider what 1 Corinthians chapters twelve through fourteen mean to a:
- Charismatic/Pentecostal/Continuationist
- Baptist/Calvinist/Cessationist
- Catholic/Orthodox
- or any other denominations

What is the basis for these denominational differences? What is the biblical authority in these cases? (since none of them agree)

It is possible that the bible has no special authority. It may be a book about religious experiences and beliefs and a people's self image as told in mythological stories about their ancestors (for the old testament) and about religious experiences for a community that received the old testament as revelation from God (for the new testament).

But if one takes the bible as a set of revelations given by God (presuming one believes in God) it still does not follow that statements in the bible have special authority for us. It is possible that the stories in the bible are to be received as examples and models from which people may learn. A view like this would mean that 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 is about what people said about their religious experiences but not something that a reader is expected to reproduce in their experience.

There is also a view that could be taken (and is taken by many) that the bible is revelation from God that ought to be received as normative for the way we ought to think, act, and speak. For those who accept this view it has to be mitigated with exceptions and historical or cultural exemptions so that believers can avoid arrest for stoning a disobedient son and embarrassment for commanding mountains to be removed and cast into the sea etcetera.

It is the last of these stated views that leads to the great variety in religious practice and biblical interpretation. Clearly different groups create different exceptions and different exemptions when they read their bibles and as a consequence arrive at different conclusions about the meaning and applicability of 1 Corinthians 12 to 14.

 

[Chi.C]

An example of what I am talking about is the below quoted post.

The bible says Jesus is the word of God, but it has been confused today to always mean the bible when the phrase word of God is used. Thus resulting in the deification of a book.

What you have said is a strawman argument. Conflating the Jesus being the Word incarnate with the idea Scriptures as an object of worship can only occur in the most lazy of logic.
1) Jesus as the Word Incarnate is a statement of the Authority of Christ.
2) The Scriptures are a affidavitted statement of the witnesses to Christ (chain of custody).
3) Also, the necessity of Scriptures are a posited statement of requirement for being a Christian.

3 statements are all independent converging to one conclusion. The Scripture is inerrant.

 

[Chi.C]

It is possible that the bible has no special authority. It may be a book about religious experiences and beliefs and a people's self image as told in mythological stories about their ancestors (for the old testament) and about religious experiences for a community that received the old testament as revelation from God (for the new testament).

But if one takes the bible as a set of revelations given by God (presuming one believes in God) it still does not follow that statements in the bible have special authority for us. It is possible that the stories in the bible are to be received as examples and models from which people may learn. A view like this would mean that 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 is about what people said about their religious experiences but not something that a reader is expected to reproduce in their experience.

There is also a view that could be taken (and is taken by many) that the bible is revelation from God that ought to be received as normative for the way we ought to think, act, and speak. For those who accept this view it has to be mitigated with exceptions and historical or cultural exemptions so that believers can avoid arrest for stoning a disobedient son and embarrassment for commanding mountains to be removed and cast into the sea etcetera.

It is the last of these stated views that leads to the great variety in religious practice and biblical interpretation. Clearly different groups create different exceptions and different exemptions when they read their bibles and as a consequence arrive at different conclusions about the meaning and applicability of 1 Corinthians 12 to 14.

Your opinion of the scriptures, being just an etiquette guideline, appear to be some sort of Occams's razor based on truisms. I assume this based on your skepticism. Then can you explain your morality without the Axiom of "God Exists"? Explain how you should conduct yourself without the bible as the foundation of your behaviour.

 

[misput]

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.