What is biblical authority...?

[Loversofjesus_2018]

The Scriptures are without doctrinal error (in their original documents). No historical error has been demonstrated.

I thought I read the story of the adulterous woman is agreed by almost all scholars to not be in the oldest manuscript available?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

The will of the Father is Jesus' two commandments (Matthew 22:37-40).
That is what is essential, and covers the whole landscape.

Yes I know that but the question has to be put as to what it means to “love God with all your heart” and “love your neighbor as yourself”.... it would seem that in order to do these two things the rest of what people call “non essential” become essential, no?

 

[Saint Steven]

... It is the interplay between the Biblical text and the living Church that is full of controversy. Some maintain that they follow the Bible alone, as if they didn't have their own interpretive traditions they lay on top of the Bible. And of course they disagree with the other guys who make the same claims about how they follow the Bible alone. So it actually comes down to how Bible and Tradition balance out. Those who reject Tradition have their own traditions but they are blinded by the sway those traditions have over them. The most traditionalist tradition is the tradition that says it has no tradition. ...

Thanks for your thoughtful, enthusiastic and detailed response. Welcome to the discussion. Your paragraph that I quoted above is loaded with all sorts of gems. I'll quote the ones I want to comment on below.

"It is the interplay between the Biblical text and the living Church that is full of controversy." - chevyontheriver

Yes, "... full of controversy." So much energy expended over the centuries in reading, study, prayer, discussion, debate, writing, preaching, codifying, preserving, and attempting to live by the biblical text. And that's not even the controversial part. - lol

"Some maintain that they follow the Bible alone, as if they didn't have their own interpretive traditions they lay on top of the Bible." - chevyontheriver

Exactly. They seem to be completely oblivious to their own traditions. Both in biblical interpretation and in religious practice.

"And of course they disagree with the other guys who make the same claims about how they follow the Bible alone." - chevyontheriver

This touches on my main concern here. How can anything be truly authoritative if there is no consensus? The lack of consensus tells me that it is still in the purview of opinion.

"So it actually comes down to how Bible and Tradition balance out." - chevyontheriver

This is a challenge to my sense that authority needs to have a singular voice. (the truth) The idea that there is some give and take to find the "balance", as you put it, is a challenging concept. Let's discuss this further, please. How do you sort through this? What are the key principles involved? It seems to me, there needs to be an anchor, or some firm mooring to make this work. What do I tie my rope to?

"Those who reject Tradition have their own traditions but they are blinded by the sway those traditions have over them." - chevyontheriver

Exactly. Like a fish that has no concept of what water really is.

"The most traditionalist tradition is the tradition that says it has no tradition." - chevyontheriver

Wow. LOL

One thing we really haven't touched on in this posting between you and I, is the aspect of experience in concert with tradition and scripture. The catalyst for this topic was a description I heard about a tricycle that has as its front steering wheel spiritual experience and two rear stabilizing wheels of tradition and scripture. What's your take on that idea? Where does the experience of a personal religious journey fit in the Traditional Church? (capital T and C) Or with the idea of authority. Is there some authority in experience as well? (now I'm WAY out in left field, I suppose)

 

[Saint Steven]

"Let each person be fully convinced in their own mind". Romans 14:5

That may be somewhat of a proof text for my thought about personal religious experience being a type of authority.

Unfortunately, there is even MORE disparity among personal experiences than between denominations. Which probably means it isn't authoritative at all.

Maybe authority is a complete illusion. An invention of humankind to create some level of stability in our constantly shifting spiritual environment. What authority do YOU bow to? (personal/experiential/traditional/interpretive) So many to choose from.

 

[Saint Steven]

The only way to validate Paul's teachings in 1 Co is to fully commit to small group meetings
with others who are equally committed, [do not be unequally yoked] and submit to the Holy Spirit.
To have trust in the Spirit and the Word is the only way to see the gifts and manifestations.
I have witnessed the Holy Spirit direct our fellowship, often from the least likely, for He is not
a "respecter of persons". I honestly have no idea what the position of various denominations are
on these instructions from Paul, but I know they are Truth, and are as valid today as ever.

That works for Continuationists. And the Cessationists have had their meetings as well. They have a very detailed apologetic that 180 is degrees away from your (our) position on that.

So where is the authority in this situation? Both camps claim to have arrived at their conclusions from the authority of the Bible. What can we conclude about that?
1) One group is wrong and the other is right?
2) Both groups are wrong?
3) Both groups are right?

 

[Saint Steven]

In my Christian opinion...

Therefore authoritative?
Oh, wait... you said opinion.
But was it an authoritative opinion?
How can an opinion be "Christian"?
Isn't the use of the term "Christian opinion" intended to silence any opposition?
Inferring that any disagreement is "unChristian"?
Maybe I'm overthinking this. - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

.

What if everybody got different parts right?

That's an interesting direction to explore.
How do we sift through the remains to find what is authoritative though?
Eat the meat and spit out the bones?
I'm back to experiential authority again. Seems so relativistic. Your truth/my truth.

 

[Saint Steven]

All see scripture through sunglasses.
A Baptist through Baptist sunglasses.

I like that.
Where is the authority in this situation?

 

[Saint Steven]

Due to the limitations of the human interpreter, on many important matters of the faith Scripture simply cannot answer with a degree of certainty apart from the lived experience of the church, which we should all benefit from as I see it. Otherwise we often end up engaging is a sort of best-guess theology. It's one thing to discern God's voice in Scripture, and to be inspired by it. It's another thing, however, to understand the full gospel truth-His will for man- based on Scripture alone.

I like what you are saying.
How does authority work in that situation? (between scripture and tradition)

 

[Saint Steven]

Some people don’t get it - God puts the responsibility on each individual believer to study the scriptures for themselves and determine the truth - not some priest, church, or denomination.

He gives us the Holy Spirit to lead us to the truth as we study scripture diligently.

Doesn't that make truth relativistic? Your truth/my truth.
Would the Holy Spirit give different (conflicting) truth to different individuals?

 

[Saint Steven]

There are different denominations because they differ on their interpretations of Scripture. They are still all broadly Christian, but they disagree on secondary matters so they choose to do church separately.

So, is there authority in the differences? Can authority be in disagreement with itself?

 

[Saint Steven]

Biblical Authority means in some contexts Bible = God.

Biblical Authority in some contexts means My interpretation = Authority.

It tends to translate to every individual being their own pope.

I'm guessing you mean that all three of these are wrong. (maybe not though)
The Bible is NOT God. (or shouldn't be)
My interpretation is NOT authoritative. (how can it be?)
And I'm NOT the Pope. (only room for one?)

 

[Saint Steven]

There is a significant agreement between most denominations, e.g. salvation is through Christ (the Son of God) who died and rose again, God is Creator, sin is the main point of emnity between God and humanity, etc. And, of course, lots of disagreement.

I agree with those that have pointed out the "biblical authority" that leads to denominational differences is ultimately a matter of interpretation. In other words, it's a matter of human error, which is to be expected. What follows from that? Any claim that my interpretation is correct and another's incorrect is ultimately an appeal to human authority. Of course, that's not the conclusion anyone wants. Each wants to say theirs is correct.

If the scriptures have any authority at all for Christians, it must be rooted in the risen Christ. It cannot be that scriptures are self-authenticating. They have authority, if and only if, the one proclaimed within them actually came, died, and rose again. He is not risen because the scriptures say so. They say so, because he is risen.

People try to ground the authority of scripture in its own perfection, its inerrancy. That's a fool's errand. It doesn't have that function. It is a means that points to an end. Only the incarnated, crucified, resurrected, ascended Christ can ground the proclamation found within the scriptures. Whether the scriptures, as a whole, are perfect is irrelevant. The witness doesn't have to be perfect to speak truly about the perfect One.

If the scriptures were perfect and self authenticating, we wouldn't need the witness of the Holy Spirit. To say the Holy Spirit helps us see the scriptures are perfect is redundant. The Holy Spirit first helps us see the truth about Christ as proclaimed in the scriptures. Once that happens, the perfection of the biblical witness is irrelevant.

Great post. Thanks.

I wonder if there is a way to pare this question of authority down to its essence. I'm torn between authority being a singular thing (one truth) and it being a relative thing. (personal/experiential)

Others are looking for balance between church tradition and the scriptures for authority. But then we are back to the authority of human opinion. Who decides? And is that absolute, or relativistic?

 

[public hermit]

Great post. Thanks.

I wonder if there is a way to pare this question of authority down to its essence. I'm torn between authority being a singular thing (one truth) and it being a relative thing. (personal/experiential)

Others are looking for balance between church tradition and the scriptures for authority. But then we are back to the authority of human opinion. Who decides? And is that absolute, or relativistic?

My opinion (lol)...I think there is a common experience and way of life that validates the proclamation found in the scriptures. It's shown in the common confession that "Jesus is Lord." The particulars of what that means trips us up. The differences are due to human error, which is to be expected, perhaps not as much as it is, but we know why.

But, for some miraculous and wonderful reason, we all confess that he is the One. This is why I say the authority rests in him, despite our many, many differences. So, oddly enough, the ground of authority rests in One, but we have gotten our hands in it and bifurcated it exponentially. Still, and irrevocably, we all confess him.

 

[DamianWarS]

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)

The bible is a passive authority, we are the aggressors.

 

[Albion]

Some people don’t get it - God puts the responsibility on each individual believer to study the scriptures for themselves and determine the truth - not some priest, church, or denomination.

There really is no reason to think that. The New Testament is full of references to the church which--according to the New Testament again--Jesus himself said he'd founded. So, study, yes, but that's not to say that we are all on our own as individuals with greatly different abilities, doing our best to to properly understand God's word.

 

[Albion]

So then authority, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder? What is authoritative about that?

Nothing, I'd guess. But that's isn't what I wrote.

You referred to the myriad of different interpretations of the Bible that different churches have, and I pointed out that there really are only several basic approaches taken. That means, I would have to conclude, that while there is some difference of opinion about that authority, it doesn't amount to a huge number of competing opinions.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

On the issue of tradition, there is some kind of point to be made or delineated on a Reformation view of it. Namely Magisterial Protestants believe in it as a kind of secondary lower tier authority that kind of covers things when scripture is unclear, silent etc.


1) But I think that is a little deficient etc. And that comes out at different times. Saint Augustine's battles with the Arians, especially "Debate with Maxaminius" kind of bring that up. There are some passages that can sound very Arian taking at face value e.g. Jesus does not know when his arrival on Judgement day will be, various passages about His submission to the Father etc. The Arian also railed against nonbiblical tradition in this case Trinity and Christology that he believed was based on tradition and philosophy and not on scripture, and pretty much could out quote the various orthodox Bishops on his position.


2) There is some aspects of scripture that have to do with Tradition (Paradosis) because that term has to do with passing on a literal thing like an inheritance etc. And that especially has a lot to do with the New Testament especially the Gospels, epistles etc.


3) Certain terms like Solo Scriptura are useful as far as describing people's position on Tradition etc. They however can be artificial distinctions when you look at the Reformers original position was, especially Luther. (Luther in his very early days seemed very confident, to the point of over confidence, that his positions could literally be proven by Scripture Alone).


4) Keith Mathison in books like "the Shape of Sola Scripura" has some kind of terms that may be useful on the subject. Like Tradition 0 = the state of where the apostles were in the early chapters of the book of Acts, verses Tradition 1 the position of things they decided, verses Tradition 2, things coming from the Apostolic Fathers and Nicea, and Tradition 3 things coming after that time.

I haven't actually read his book, only read lots of stuff about it. I don't really agree with a lot of his positions but I do cite him occasionally because I like some of his writings and quote some of them when I encounter some anti-tradition Protestants (very succinct and articulate statements why antitradition Protestants are wrong).

A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura

not all protestant are solo scriptura, that's post-reformation.

The Complete Guide to Denominations

 

[Albion]

not all protestant are solo scriptura....

In fact, it's few which are.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

In fact, it's few which are.

yes, I see you're an anglican, some anglican are charismatic. Things can change..