What is biblical authority...?

[chevyontheriver]

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

The study and prayer over the text do have a cumulative effect, both on the individuals and on the community. We are in a real way the summation of 2000 years of being the Body of Christ and even more time being faithful Israel. We are interwoven with the Word. Which is why a person can't do away with the Church and just wing it with a Bible.

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.

No. It's still possible for one to be authoritatively right and the other flat wrong. We don't have to throw up our hands and conclude that everything is hopelessly randomly confused.

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?

God gave us a single revelation. Not multiple disconnected revelations. One of the schemas for Vatican II on Scripture was about how Scripture and Tradition were TWO sources. That schema was tossed out as the bad theology it was. Replaced with the view that there was a single source. There is a single voice of truth, Jesus Himself. He taught the disciples, raised some to be apostles, gave them authority, and they cobbed together a New Testament consonant with the teaching they received directly from Jesus. The Church and the Bible go together. They shouldn't be used apart from each other, and even before the NT was written the OT and the Church went together. So the balance is the Church explaining Scripture and the Scripture limiting the Church.

I think it's well explained in Dei Verbum, the Vatican II dogmatic constitution on Holy Scripture.

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)

I don't trust my experience. I have a heart of darkness just like the rest of humanity. I also know that I am far from infallible. (The great advantage of having a pope is knowing you are not the pope.) So if my experience tells me something I am skeptical. I allow for some common sense, but not much. What I look for is the aggregate experience of many other faithful Christians. Errors tend to cancel and sometimes the exemplars to follow are even obvious. If the Church declares them to be saints then I can cautiously trust them as guides for me.

I've never heard of this tricycle analogy but I like it enough to consider it. I do see Tradition and Scripture as good balancers for our experiences, but I tend not to rely much on my own experience as anything super-trustworthy. But if you substitute in the community experience of the Church then it makes more sense and I think Scripture and Tradition are great stabilizers. And the tricycle works.

The analogy that's been out there more commonly is that of a stool. Three legs. Scripture, Tradition, and the live exercise of authority in the Church. Without any one the stool is unstable. All three need to work together. Dead Tradition doesn't work. Sola Scriptura doesn't work. Even the combination of two of them doesn't work And making it up as we go along doesn't work either. The tension of the three elements seems most fruitful to me. It forms an interpretive framework that is sound, flexible yet tested, not ossified, not lost to the fluctuations of the crazy culture. And the dead get their vote in the Tradition and in the Biblical texts that some of them wrote.

I cautiously make my own journey trying to be within the safety of the flock. I know that doesn't sound very bold, but I'd rather not be bold in the sense of Marcion or Arius or even Luther. I got a chance this weekend to see the Sandhill Cranes as they stopped on the Platte River. They spend a month there, spending the nights on sandbars in the river and the days in the fields fattening up. And making noise. They are always conversing. Incessantly. Loudly. A million birds who can't keep quiet, in dialogue with each other. And in a week or two they will take off and some will fly as far as Siberia. And they'll do it again next year and every year. That massive flock, that congregation, defines them though, far better than a description of any one bird.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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?

Who was taught by Jesus? Are they following the pedigree of what Jesus taught them? If Jesus is God, then the apostles were not just spouting mere human opinion but God's opinion. And they were chosen to perpetuate a Church that was promised it would not crash and burn. On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. We stay close to that and there is much more than human opinion around. There is some real authority.

 

[Jesusthekingofking]

The study and prayer over the text do have a cumulative effect, both on the individuals and on the community. We are in a real way the summation of 2000 years of being the Body of Christ and even more time being faithful Israel. We are interwoven with the Word. Which is why a person can't do away with the Church and just wing it with a Bible.

No. It's still possible for one to be authoritatively right and the other flat wrong. We don't have to throw up our hands and conclude that everything is hopelessly randomly confused.

God gave us a single revelation. Not multiple disconnected revelations. One of the schemas for Vatican II on Scripture was about how Scripture and Tradition were TWO sources. That schema was tossed out as the bad theology it was. Replaced with the view that there was a single source. There is a single voice of truth, Jesus Himself. He taught the disciples, raised some to be apostles, gave them authority, and they cobbed together a New Testament consonant with the teaching they received directly from Jesus. The Church and the Bible go together. They shouldn't be used apart from each other, and even before the NT was written the OT and the Church went together. So the balance is the Church explaining Scripture and the Scripture limiting the Church.

I think it's well explained in Dei Verbum, the Vatican II dogmatic constitution on Holy Scripture.

I don't trust my experience. I have a heart of darkness just like the rest of humanity. I also know that I am far from infallible. (The great advantage of having a pope is knowing you are not the pope.) So if my experience tells me something I am skeptical. I allow for some common sense, but not much. What I look for is the aggregate experience of many other faithful Christians. Errors tend to cancel and sometimes the exemplars to follow are even obvious. If the Church declares them to be saints then I can cautiously trust them as guides for me.

I've never heard of this tricycle analogy but I like it enough to consider it. I do see Tradition and Scripture as good balancers for our experiences, but I tend not to rely much on my own experience as anything super-trustworthy. But if you substitute in the community experience of the Church then it makes more sense and I think Scripture and Tradition are great stabilizers. And the tricycle works.

The analogy that's been out there more commonly is that of a stool. Three legs. Scripture, Tradition, and the live exercise of authority in the Church. Without any one the stool is unstable. All three need to work together. Dead Tradition doesn't work. Sola Scriptura doesn't work. Even the combination of two of them doesn't work And making it up as we go along doesn't work either. The tension of the three elements seems most fruitful to me. It forms an interpretive framework that is sound, flexible yet tested, not ossified, not lost to the fluctuations of the crazy culture. And the dead get their vote in the Tradition and in the Biblical texts that some of them wrote.

I cautiously make my own journey trying to be within the safety of the flock. I know that doesn't sound very bold, but I'd rather not be bold in the sense of Marcion or Arius or even Luther. I got a chance this weekend to see the Sandhill Cranes as they stopped on the Platte River. They spend a month there, spending the nights on sandbars in the river and the days in the fields fattening up. And making noise. They are always conversing. Incessantly. Loudly. A million birds who can't keep quiet, in dialogue with each other. And in a week or two they will take off and some will fly as far as Siberia. And they'll do it again next year and every year. That massive flock, that congregation, defines them though, far better than a description of any one bird.

Sola scriptura doesn't work? We Christian believe scripture is inspired and God's breath, sola scriptura is not solo scriptura although that's the situation now for many protestant. The early Christian hold scripture highly and submit themselves to it. It's good you make the effort to read widely, we all should..

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

That reminds of the conversation Jesus had that led to (what we call) the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus said, "... and love your neighbor as yourself." And we humans asked, "Who is my neighbor?" (we can't leave it alone)

I have often challenged those here who want to add something to the basis for our salvation. Asking, "How are such things measured?" When we base our salvation on the finished work of Christ, that is easily measured. "It is finished!"

And I love what you are saying about everything boiling down to humankind confessing that Jesus is Lord. There is no Jew or gentile in that, no Protestant or Catholic, no denomination, no nation, no race, no color, no creed. Authority stripped to the bare necessity. The name above all rule and authority. (see verse 21 below)

I think you nailed it.

Perhaps the most important question Jesus ever asked is, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter nailed it. - lol

Ephesians 1:18-23 NIV
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

But even if it only boiled down to two, wouldn't that mean there is still no complete consensus? Which of the two is authoritative? And there are many more than two, correct?

 

[Mountainmike]

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

Several factors

Paul tell us we must hold true to “ paradosis” (ie faith handed down, tradition) by word of mouth and letter. So when we see disciples of John , Ignatius telling smyrneans that the Eucharist is of real flesh, valid only if presided by bishop in succession, that clearly is the meaning of John 6. Tradition hands the meaning of scripture.

Something that is often missed is that sola scriptura was not a Jewish doctrine either. Many phrases quoted even in gospels are not in OT , but in ancient Jewish oral tradition. Like “ he will be called a Nazarene” was clearly messianic prophesy, even Moses chair as authority. These oral traditions were collected in such as the Mishnah. It doesn’t altar the fact that oral tradition travelled alongside scripture and always has.

The difference between catholics and others is they own up to the collection of oral tradition as a catechism, which collects interpretations of scripture and derived truth such as trinity , original sin, and authority judgements.

Others that claim they are sola scriptura really are not. Some have written articles or concords, “ their sunglasses” others just pass verbal interpretation. If I ask a Baptist what Eucharist means, or why Peter isn’t the rock, all give the same answer. It’s not an answer they all dreamed up separately, it was handed to them orally, in writings etc.

All have the sunglasses of tradition, the question is which lines up best with apostolic tradition and authority decisions.

We also have to go back to where scripture says authority is, who was given the power to bind and loose and where is it now? What judgements did it make ( I include the canon of scripture in that).

 

[DamianWarS]

But even if it only boiled down to two, wouldn't that mean there is still no complete consensus? Which of the two is authoritative? And there are many more than two, correct?

If both are led by the holy spirit than both carry the athority of Christ. The X church is limited and the Y church is limited however each can reach people the other cannot not so each have a purpose in advancing the kingdom.

 

[Saint Steven]

The study and prayer over the text do have a cumulative effect, both on the individuals and on the community. We are in a real way the summation of 2000 years of being the Body of Christ and even more time being faithful Israel. We are interwoven with the Word. Which is why a person can't do away with the Church and just wing it with a Bible.

Being Protestant, I struggle with that. (even though you have made a great point about every denomination having its own tradition) The first thing that came to mind was the faith chapter. (Heb.11) None of them had either a Bible or a church. (although many argue that point) Yet they all had a relationship with God and enough faith to make mention in that chapter. A burning bush experience is worth more than any of us can muster. IMHO

Does the cumulative aspect build value, or spiritual baggage? I don't mean to be insulting, but when I look at the Traditional churches it seems to me that all the trappings get in the way. Adding complication to the simplicity of the gospel.

What does that look like from your perspective? I know that to some Traditional church people, us Protestants look like snake oil peddlers that have hung a shingle on a cheap corner and are bilking little old ladies out of their life savings. The total opposite of the cumulative value you speak of.

 

[Saint Steven]

God gave us a single revelation. Not multiple disconnected revelations. One of the schemas for Vatican II on Scripture was about how Scripture and Tradition were TWO sources. That schema was tossed out as the bad theology it was. Replaced with the view that there was a single source. There is a single voice of truth, Jesus Himself. He taught the disciples, raised some to be apostles, gave them authority, and they cobbed together a New Testament consonant with the teaching they received directly from Jesus. The Church and the Bible go together. They shouldn't be used apart from each other, and even before the NT was written the OT and the Church went together. So the balance is the Church explaining Scripture and the Scripture limiting the Church.

I'm beginning to see a continuum of authority in our discussion.
Jesus>Scripture>Church

- Jesus is the ultimate authority.
- He is proclaimed (even poorly) in the Scriptures. (not the ultimate authority)
- The Church (the Body of Christ) is charged (given authority from Christ) to proclaim the Scriptures that point to the ultimate authority, Jesus Christ.

The Church and its Tradition then being twice removed from the ultimate authority, who is Jesus Christ.

How would you package this from your perspective?

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't trust my experience. I have a heart of darkness just like the rest of humanity. I also know that I am far from infallible. (The great advantage of having a pope is knowing you are not the pope.) So if my experience tells me something I am skeptical. I allow for some common sense, but not much. What I look for is the aggregate experience of many other faithful Christians. Errors tend to cancel and sometimes the exemplars to follow are even obvious. If the Church declares them to be saints then I can cautiously trust them as guides for me.

This points to a major contention I have with Traditional church. The laity has abandoned their "knower", for lack of a better term. They seem to have traded a personal relationship with God for an impersonal relationship with the Church. A nameless, faceless sheep in the flock. Jesus, the good shepherd, has been replaced with a human shepherd. Layers have been added. Half a dozen, or more, "offices" (bishops, cardinals, etc.) between the lay person and the Pope. God isn't even a part of the equation. (hierarchy) And the scriptures tell us there is only one mediator between us and God, Jesus Christ. Whose throne we can boldly approach. Not a whole lot of "boldly approaching" in the Traditional Church.

Apologies. What do you make of my tirade? - lol

 

[GDL]

And the bereans are called noble in scripture for not taking Paul’s teaching as a fact, until they searched the scriptures, to see if it be so.

The onus is on the believer to study and come to the truth.

Good point and agree! Thus the commands to not be deceived.

Yes, and that's an important point. There's still a question as to who is actually given that appointment. Many are called but apparently a lot more answer-as is suggested by the variety of teachings we may hear.

Another good point! It is painfully obvious that there are a multitude of "ministries" & "prophets" as well as teachers that are pushing other than truth. The bigger question for me comes down to why the varied major divisions still?

 

[Saint Steven]

Who was taught by Jesus? Are they following the pedigree of what Jesus taught them? If Jesus is God, then the apostles were not just spouting mere human opinion but God's opinion. And they were chosen to perpetuate a Church that was promised it would not crash and burn. On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. We stay close to that and there is much more than human opinion around. There is some real authority.

In a previous thread someone made the honest confession that the "pedigree" was unfortunately producing some mutts. (ouch) That there needed to be some housecleaning done to fix this problem. I see apostolic succession to be a weak link in the chain of authority that is emerging in this discussion. (at least in my mind)

Iwant to continue adding to the chain of authority here. (adding message as authority)
Jesus>Scripture>Church>Message (the gospel)

Since the gospel (message) saves us, it seems to have authority. In fact, it is so potent, it may deserve to be farther back in the chain. Jesus>Gospel>Scripture>Church ???

1 Corinthians 15:2 NIV
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

 

[GDL]

That massive flock, that congregation, defines them though, far better than a description of any one bird.

But the same can be said for any flock of any different group. So, the rhetorically asked question from the Protestant side of why Roman Catholicism is "the" group. And the main answers from Catholics that the Protestants have claimed are not valid.

The claims of oral traditions have always been an issue, beginning with the Jews.

 

[Saint Steven]

Paul tell us we must hold true to “ paradosis” (ie faith handed down, tradition) by word of mouth and letter. So when we see disciples of John , Ignatius telling smyrneans that the Eucharist is of real flesh, valid only if presided by bishop in succession, that clearly is the meaning of John 6. Tradition hands the meaning of scripture.

That declaration makes me VERY angry! You are discounting the Eucharist/Communion in EVERY church but your own! How can I be considered a Christian in your view? Very divisive words on your part! Did I misunderstand you? Please explain. Thanks.

 

[Saint Steven]

All have the sunglasses of tradition, the question is which lines up best with apostolic tradition and authority decisions.

We also have to go back to where scripture says authority is, who was given the power to bind and loose and where is it now? What judgements did it make ( I include the canon of scripture in that).

I think your chain of authority is messed up. You are putting far too much trust in fallible humans. It was Jesus that gave the original authority to bind and loose, not the church, or your claim to succession. Inbreeding produces mutts. IMHO

 

[Saint Steven]

If both are led by the holy spirit than both carry the athority of Christ. The X church is limited and the Y church is limited however each can reach people the other cannot not so each have a purpose in advancing the kingdom.

Even if the two are in 180 degree disagreement? Example from OP: Continuationists versus Cessationists.

Saint Steven said: ↑
But even if it only boiled down to two, wouldn't that mean there is still no complete consensus? Which of the two is authoritative? And there are many more than two, correct?

 

[zoidar]

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.

Yes it is! I can't believe one church or denomination got it all right. I think often the big difference is where we lay the focus. Is it more on obedience or more on mercy etc.

 

[Tree of Life]

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

Are you asking how we can decide which denomination is the right one?

 

[Saint Steven]

Based on this amazing discussion (thanks to all participants) I am toying with a model of a chain of authority.
Jesus>Gospel>Scripture>Church

And i want to add the Believer to this chain. Jesus has given us authority as believers. (scripture below) But where does this belong in the chain?
Jesus>Gospel>Scripture>Believer>Church

Luke 10:19 NIV
I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes it is! I can't believe one church or denomination got it all right. I think often the big difference is where we lay the focus. Is it more on obedience or more on mercy etc.

Right. I see the denominations as not bringing division to the church, but rather specialization in some aspect.