What is biblical authority...?

[Strong in Him]

Such is the case with most, if not all literature - what is the author's meaning.

Even reading in context those chapters re: the gifts, there are some things hard to understand and routinely arguable.

How do you read them and what is your conclusion?

Paul was writing to the church at Corinth.
It seems that one of the reasons he had for writing was that he had heard that there were divisions in the church. He states this immediately after his opening greeting, 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, and returns to it in chapter 3.

In chapter 11, Paul turns to the subject of worship and the Lord's Supper - it appears that the Corinthians were behaving indecently, and practicing inequality , even here. In the NIV these first verses are headed "propriety in worship" - when they pray and prophesy says Paul, the correct behaviour is that women should cover their heads; men shouldn't. They were again showing their divisions when they came to celebrate the Lord's Supper; it seems that some were arriving early and eating and drinking what they liked, even getting drunk, while others who got there later, missed out and went hungry. Paul is appalled by their behaviour and says they need to recognise that they, together, are they body of Christ.
He expands on this in chapter 12 where he writes of the church as being like a human body. Our bodies are not all eye, ears, hands etc, he says; each has a part to play. Similarly in the church - Christians are given gifts by the Holy Spirit, and Paul lists some examples of those gifts, (this is not an exhaustive list.) He hints, in this chapter, that some desired to have the more dramatic or outward gifts; maybe those who had them believed that they were more important than the others. Paul says that they should be desiring, and striving for, the greatest gift of all - love. There then follows that marvellous chapter, known as the "love chapter of the Bible". Among other things, says Paul, love is not envious, boastful, rude, self seeking and kept no record of wrongs - this, written to a church that was divided, had been practicing sexual immorality and taking fellow believers to court.
In the next chapter, chapter 14, Paul again turns to the question of prophecy and tongues. It is clear that Paul valued the gift of tongues - he wanted them all to have it, 1 Corinthians 14:5 - but says that they should rather desire to have the gift of prophecy. Tongues are valuable, but prophecy is speaking to believers, to strengthen, encourage and comfort them. Speaking in tongues is about speaking to God; prophesy is about speaking to, and edifying, the church. He then goes on to talk practicalities: yes, people can speak in tongues and prophesy during worship, but one at a time, and if someone is going to speak in tongues, there should be an interpreter present. Same with prophecy; ideally have no more that 2 or 3 people prophesying; only one at a time, and if someone who is seated receives a word from the Lord, the person who is speaking and prophesying must sit down and give way. People can all prophesy in turn, says Paul, FOR God is a God of order, not disharmony.

This seems to fit entirely with what he has said previously in his letter: don't be divided or argue amongst yourselves but value one another and the various gifts that people have; don't behave indecently or bring disorder to worship, but honour and respect one another - for you are all the body of Christ.

This is still relevant and invaluable for us today, even if some of the details have changed.
"Some say, 'I follow Paul', another 'I follow Apollos', another, 'I follow Cephas'," 1 Corinthians 1:12. How many denominations do we have? How many say, effectively, "WE do things the correct way; THIS is how Christians behave/worship/what they believe"?
How many Christians believe that speaking in tongues is not only important, but a sign of salvation? How many teach that the dramatic, "outward" gifts of the Spirit - tongues, word of knowledge, healing, miracles - are the most important and either evidence of baptism in the Spirit, or at least a sign of greater spirituality? When was the last time you heard someone preaching that we should desire the gifts of administration, or service? How many believe that the way that they observe the Lord's supper is the only way?
How many of us are squabbling over church practices, ignoring the greatest gift of all - love - and failing to realise that we are one in Christ, with him as our head?

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

Thanks for the clarification.
Is the main difference between what you (collectively) consider to be the Bride (body) of Christ and what you call the Church of Christ have to do with Apostolic Succession? The Catholics with theirs and the Orthodox with theirs. (must be identical at the beginning?) Where east meets west. - lol (the fork in the road)

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

Thanks for your post. This points to an issue that we should discuss here. Whether the Bible is to be viewed as either figurative, or literal, or both. You didn't use those terms. But seems to be what you are writing about.

It seems like, if the Bible is viewed as figurative, it has no authority. It is only pointing toward something that perhaps is authoritative. (not sure on that) If the Bible is viewed as literal, then it has authority. But as you pointed out, that comes with all sorts of problems. (like missing mountains - lol) Will the literalists tell us that is literal?

With my shamefully Evangelical background, I was raised to believe that the Bible is literal and authoritative. (every word) And on some topics, I still hold that view. (1Cor.12-14 for one) The figurative view is a newer concept for me. It makes me a bit uneasy, but I see the need to give it some consideration.

Anyone with thoughts on this should respond. Thanks.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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.

The scripture says that it isn't inerrant though.

Even in Jeremiah, God renounces the scribes with their lying pen who were polluting the copying of the law.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But, don't we have written by the Apostles how there was already in their time those straying from what they were teaching? Isn't that the practice in our time, and that before us, to work to determine what is in line with the Apostolic writings themselves?

Yeah but not the entire church. Jesus said some will fall away not all.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Thanks for your post. This points to an issue that we should discuss here. Whether the Bible is to be viewed as either figurative, or literal, or both. You didn't use those terms. But seems to be what you are writing about.

It seems like, if the Bible is viewed as figurative, it has no authority. It is only pointing toward something that perhaps is authoritative. (not sure on that) If the Bible is viewed as literal, then it has authority. But as you pointed out, that comes with all sorts of problems. (like missing mountains - lol) Will the literalists tell us that is literal?

With my shamefully Evangelical background, I was raised to believe that the Bible is literal and authoritative. (every word) And on some topics, I still hold that view. (1Cor.12-14 for one) The figurative view is a newer concept for me. It makes me a bit uneasy, but I see the need to give it some consideration.

Anyone with thoughts on this should respond. Thanks.

I tend to see it in parallels.

Some passages are figurative and literal at the same time, some are figurative, and some are literal.

Sometimes the literal sense is figurative to our eyes, but literal to the God who lives in the Spiritual realm.

Understanding the basis of the saying is helpful also. For example, the law has a basis in the creation, in that, it has nothing to speak of if this creation ceases. There are layers of understandings and multiple parallels, but most people have a mind able to look at things in one line with no parallels - so when it is misunderstood, it is to be expected.

And that's not the whole of it, there's so much to learn about learning from it and God.

I don't think anyone will get to the end of understanding in a sin prone body, which is probably why we are instructed to examine the fruit of application, and the fruit of those speaking doctrine so we can get a sense of the spirit behind the idea we're getting from the bible, a prophecy, or even a creation parable in real time.

 

[Saint Steven]

The scripture says that it isn't inerrant though.

Even in Jeremiah, God renounces the scribes with their lying pen who were polluting the copying of the law.

That's a good point. And in reference to Bible translation... The translators will obviously interpret the text to read according to their understanding of it. Which leads to a biased translation. As a proponent of UR, I can really see the Damnationist bias in the Bible.

I even question whether God intended for us to have a Bible or not. Wasn't the Holy Spirit poured out to lead us into all truth? (that's, ALL truth) Since we can't trust that, we published a book instead. Scripture below.

The ability to hear God's voice is nearly a lost art.

John 16:13 NIV
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

John 14:26 NIV
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

 

[Saint Steven]

Some passages are figurative and literal at the same time, some are figurative, and some are literal.

Uh oh, is this a gateway drug? - lol

 

[Chi.C]

The scripture says that it isn't inerrant though.

Even in Jeremiah, God renounces the scribes with their lying pen who were polluting the copying of the law.

Interesting logic. If I write about closing down a brothel, am I a hooker? If I write a cook book, am I a bowl of pasta?

 

[Saint Steven]

I tend to see it in parallels.

Some passages are figurative and literal at the same time, some are figurative, and some are literal.

Sometimes the literal sense is figurative to our eyes, but literal to the God who lives in the Spiritual realm.

Understanding the basis of the saying is helpful also. For example, the law has a basis in the creation, in that, it has nothing to speak of if this creation ceases. There are layers of understandings and multiple parallels, but most people have a mind able to look at things in one line with no parallels - so when it is misunderstood, it is to be expected.

And that's not the whole of it, there's so much to learn about learning from it and God.

I don't think anyone will get to the end of understanding in a sin prone body, which is probably why we are instructed to examine the fruit of application, and the fruit of those speaking doctrine so we can get a sense of the spirit behind the idea we're getting from the bible, a prophecy, or even a creation parable in real time.

Thanks. That's very interesting and informative.

How would you apply (or not apply) the authority aspect to that? (since that is the main topic here) Is there authority in the parallels?

 

[Saint Steven]

Interesting logic. If I write about closing down a brothel, am I a hooker? If I write a cook book, am I a bowl of pasta?

That's using your noodle. - lol (brain)

 

[Saint Steven]

@chevyontheriver Let's get back to the authority topic.

Could we dig a bit deeper into the authority of the Bride of Christ, the Church of Christ, and the Bible from your perspective?

Even the authority of the believer? (as an individual) You seem to be uncomfortable with that one. And for good reason, I suppose. I see the OT patriarchs as lone rangers, so it doesn't bother me as much. I think everyone should have their own burning bush experience and testify to it. (the reality of our personal relationship with a personal God)

 

[Chi.C]

That's using your noodle. - lol (brain)

Sometimes a noodle is just a noodle.

 

[GDL]

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.

I'll let Clare explain her meaning and understanding, if she chooses to do so.

Certainly you have to mean "it has been confused today [by some] to always mean the bible..."

What exactly is your concern? How would you describe or explain the correlation between God and Scripture that is said to be theopneustos?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I even question whether God intended for us to have a Bible or not. Wasn't the Holy Spirit poured out to lead us into all truth? (that's, ALL truth) Since we can't trust that, we published a book instead. Scripture below.

Coming from the EO POV, in a sense, there was no Scripture that we have that dates back earlier that the Gospel of Mark, maybe around 50-60AD. Paul's letters are mainly written dealing with problems and questions in local communities. I remember hearing years ago one theory that Mark has no resurrection story because the Gospel would be read and then concluded with one of the eyewitnesses apostle, disciple, or maybe one of the various witnesses of Jesus resurrection speaking about the resurrection.

So early on, a lot of things were taught by word of mouth or well, Tradition. The early Gospels and letters were copied and re copied and sent to various churches. Let's remember that the literacy rate would have been pretty low which is why my position as a Reader exists. In the Eastern Rite, the Readers, who are consider minor clergy, are responsible for reading the Apostle and OT readings as well as constructing the variable parts of the services, in the West, what would be known as the Collect of the Day, the hymns based on the season and liturgical cycle, the saints of the day, etc. For the first few centuries when the church was under official persecution, what few books did exist were guarded by the clergy sometimes at the cost of their lives.

 

[GDL]

Paul was writing to the church at Corinth.

Thanks for your work.

I don't see your addressing the main verses in ch.13 that at the heart of the debate about cessation.

 

[Tree of Life]

No, not which denomination as a whole, but when doctrines are 180 degrees different and both claim biblical authority.

Saint Steven said: ↑
So, is there authority in the differences? Can authority be in disagreement with itself?

Every person has the responsibility to search the Scriptures for themselves to see if these things are so.

 

[Bobber]

That's a good point. And in reference to Bible translation... The translators will obviously interpret the text to read according to their understanding of it.

As far as translations I think that can be correct. I did hear of a panel of translators working on one translations some of them quit for they felt the others were showing bias on how to translate a portion. I still think translations can be a good necessary thing though.

I even question whether God intended for us to have a Bible or not.

Instead of using the word Bible we could use letters as well. But if Paul, Peter and John wrote letters to be read to the churches for what reason did they do so? (Letters...Bible....same thing right?) Wasn't it to solidify certain understandings? Why wouldn't they just have said the Holy Spirit will speak to you truth?

Wasn't the Holy Spirit poured out to lead us into all truth? (that's, ALL truth) Since we can't trust that, we published a book instead.

I'm not sure one could rightly say the church or members thereof can't trust that. But people are at different levels of spiritual growth right? I think people grow into their ability to hear from God and things like measures of carnality might impede a clear hearing of God. Very mature individuals can be like a light in the darkness helping the weaker to develop. I think Paul writings to the Corinthians in the way he did demonstrates such. And some aren't carnal from any wrong sense...some are still carnal because they do need time to develop grow and mature if they truly are just saved.

 

[GDL]

The scripture says that it isn't inerrant though.

Even in Jeremiah, God renounces the scribes with their lying pen who were polluting the copying of the law.

Not arguing for or against inerrancy here, but what you say does not substantiate in itself that their polluting was retained.

 

[GDL]

I tend to see it in parallels.

Some passages are figurative and literal at the same time, some are figurative, and some are literal.

Sometimes the literal sense is figurative to our eyes, but literal to the God who lives in the Spiritual realm.

Understanding the basis of the saying is helpful also. For example, the law has a basis in the creation, in that, it has nothing to speak of if this creation ceases. There are layers of understandings and multiple parallels, but most people have a mind able to look at things in one line with no parallels - so when it is misunderstood, it is to be expected.

And that's not the whole of it, there's so much to learn about learning from it and God.

I don't think anyone will get to the end of understanding in a sin prone body, which is probably why we are instructed to examine the fruit of application, and the fruit of those speaking doctrine so we can get a sense of the spirit behind the idea we're getting from the bible, a prophecy, or even a creation parable in real time.

Interesting thoughts. FWIW, I'm in agreement with many of them, especially your point about layers and abilities/inabilities.

One of the teachers I studied from for some time produced quite a quantity of teachings, so I heard him recorded at various ages. In one of his later teachings, thus at an older age, and in one of the more somber moments I recall ever hearing from him, he said something like, "you know, no man can learn this book in a lifetime."

It seemed to me his younger goals and pursuits had been realized to be unobtainable.

The beginning of your last paragraph seems to show a similar thinking. I would take it a step further and say we will not get to the end of understanding while here and we'll never be done learning from Him.

I'm interested to hear your answer to my other recent post, if you're so inclined.