What is biblical authority...?

[DamianWarS]

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?

I don't have a problem with tension among Christian faith groups with regards to doctrine, what I think a greater problem is apathy to the mission.

 

[GDL]

If the scriptures were perfect and self authenticating, we wouldn't need the witness of the Holy Spirit.

But doesn't the Spirit illuminate us to see the Truth in the Scriptures? I see it as our needing Him to ultimately reveal to us what we are reading. And this can be that the Scriptures do things we cannot see apart from Him.

Some personal experience (authority or no?) if I may: Through the years spent sitting under teaching, there has always been that small voice inside me saying when something doesn't make sense. Yes, at times it was me not liking something being taught that was against something I liked at the time. Part of the struggle in growth has been determining the difference.

The many checks in my spirit along the way have played out over the years of focused studies to have been proven correct in ways I can now see and understand.

There is a process and a timing in not only our personal lives, but in all of human history. Things are revealed in both as He determines.

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.

Good points. But what if one does have the correct interpretation? Is that then a claim to personal authority or to the Authority? The issue is how are we to know the difference?

You can trust the scriptures, not because they are perfect or inerrant, but because they bear witness to the Living Truth.

If they bear witness to the Living Truth & are not perfect or inerrant, then how can they be trusted? How are we able to say they are not perfect or inerrant? Do we have that ability and capacity?

There was a teaching I heard decades ago saying the ancient Rabbis believed the design of the universe is in the Torah. Some of their observations from Scripture re: things like the existence of [something like] 10 dimensions are fascinating to see how they derived such things. Who among us can say any of these things are not correct? If the Spirit was to open the Word to us completely, what would we see that we had had in our hands the whole time?

As seemingly mystical as His Spirit can be, cannot His written word be just as vast as the Word who inspired it? I trust Him, so I trust His Word and His Spirit who illuminates me to what He means in what He's said.

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?

In any given matter it seems one would have to be applicable. Many times the old commercial for Certs or something rings in my ears re: theological conclusions - the ringing being, Stop! You're both right! Once the argument becomes imbedded as a right vs. wrong, neither can see the light the other has. Sometimes the right vs. wrong is right. Many times it is not.

There's a specific grammatical structure in Greek for "on the one hand _____ and on the other hand ______." I don't think we use such thinking enough. The NT uses it frequently. There's a dimensional reasoning that escapes us.

 

[GDL]

tension

good word!

 

[Albion]

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

Being charismatic doesn't necessitate any change in a person's attitude towards Scripture or the authority of Scripture, however.

 

[GDL]

And I love what you are saying about everything boiling down to humankind confessing that Jesus is Lord.

Although many use this confession for many purposes, at some point all will confess it in truth and having come to realize it in one way or another (Philippians 2:9-11)

The problem is not in the confession, but in living pursuant to the confession (Titus 1:16).

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.

Catholic input might be interesting here.

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

Why Gospel? Is it separate from Scripture at this point?

Is believer separate from His Ekklesia?

The Head / The Word (Scripture) > the Body (working together with no unimportant parts).

It seems just because we can't unify in Scripture does not mean Scripture is the problem. Isn't the problem always us? Isn't the body always susceptible to malfunction & disease in this world, and also deceit?

I think in our time, as in times before us, the whole corporate body issue is interesting. How does one remain in a corporate group that such a one comes to realize is not functioning according to or teaching Truth? In our time there seems to be tremendous infancy, more than assembled maturity, and the [spiritual] infants are temporal adults capable of assembling and functioning in very large groups (like spring-break in Miami right now).

 

[GDL]

Being charismatic doesn't necessitate any change in a person's attitude towards Scripture or the authority of Scripture, however.

But it's near impossible to get many charismatics to agree to this. And it's very difficult to get many staunch cessationists to consider the possibility of the true gifts to still be functional and not a part of the so-called tongues, laughter and dog-barking.

 

[Albion]

But even if it only boiled down to two, wouldn't that mean there is still no complete consensus?

Certainly. However, that wouldn't amount to a bewildering array of choices which in turn would make someone say that there's no way to know how to maneuver through them OR conclude from the large number that none of them could be right.

Which of the two is authoritative? And there are many more than two, correct?

I referred to several approaches, and each of them is considered authoritative by the various churches that follow them.

 

[Albion]

But it's near impossible to get many charismatics to agree to this. And it's very difficult to get many staunch cessationists to consider the possibility of the true gifts to still be functional and not a part of the so-called tongues, laughter and dog-barking.

All right, but I didn't make any special comment concerning charismatics in my original reply. I didn't put them into any certain category as far as the topic here is concerned.

What you are referring to, it seems to me, is the fact that not every Christian accepts the discipline of a denomination which itself accepts one of the kinds of authorities that I pointed to.

That's not unique to charismatic Christians, although I get your point that it may be more prevalent among charismatics than some other groups.

 

[com7fy8]

Right. That is mostly what I see in the way "authority" is used. To prove themselves right, and more importantly, to prove someone else WRONG!

Well, it is good to use God's word to help to show how Jesus is right! And use God's word to compare ourselves with Jesus and how He wants us to love.

But a cultic trick is to have some enemy and keep showing how that enemy is wrong, and therefore why the cultic personality and/or group needs the cultic set-up. And it is common for an unstable person in a church to use criticism of leaders, using the Bible somehow as that unstable person's authority . . . piggy-backing on the credibility of the Bible.

And I have used the Bible to try to make myself look good . . . as some great teacher who the whole world should be hearing.

b - u - t . . .

Christians can see through this.

I think authority needs to include good example. We need leaders who are qualified according to 1 Timothy 3:1-10 > who know how to take care of God's people in our Father's family caring and sharing way . . . which they have learned at home in their marriages, so now they can pastor others and their marriages > having become mature examples >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

 

[GDL]

Being charismatic doesn't necessitate any change in a person's attitude towards Scripture or the authority of Scripture, however.

A little more follow-up:

IMO, NT Scripture on this matter is very difficult to conclude from. I was taught under hard-core cessationists. Experientially, I have been around very odd charismatics, including those who would jump on airplanes to go be involved with the latest "moving of the spirt" no matter what that moving included.

I believe in the authority of Scripture under the supreme Authority of the Head/Word. After being trained in exegesis to whatever degree, studying the Scriptures I was taught such doctrine from, I came to disagree with the staunch cessationism of my teachers. I also disagree with the wild antics labeled as moves of the spirit.

At this point (and I have not studied it further for quite awhile), my position has been something to the effect, If I know you and hear you speak to someone about the Lord Christ in some language I know you don't know, and they understand you, and I can be informed of what was said, then I'm good with it and the cessation debate is settled to some degree.

As one who values exegesis of Scripture, I know what will be said to me re: experience vs. exegesis, but part of our training as Christians is to have our actions conformed to the Word. How God gets us to see the Truth can be interesting. Until I believe I see & understand something clearly in Scripture, I have to remain open to having questions answered however He chooses to answer them. Then we always have the Berean and other Biblical concepts to use to verify. Also to an ever-lessening degree, I remain open to having my current understandings modified by Him, however He chooses to teach me. Christ always being the ultimate Authority, or He is not the Christ.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Sola scriptura doesn't work?

Manifestly it doesn't work. The diversity of incompatible beliefs generated by the adherents of this dogma is proof of that.

We Christian believe scripture is inspired and God's breath,

As do I. I do not question that one bit.

sola scriptura is not solo scriptura although that's the situation now for many protestant.

You guys can't even agree upon your central dogma, splitting hairs over what it is called and what it means and dividing even more because you can't agree on the formulation of your central dogma. IF it came direct from Scripture it should be much more obvious what it means.

The early Christian hold scripture highly and submit themselves to it. It's good you make the effort to read widely, we all should..

On that I agree. I just think your central dogma is non-functional and non-Scriptural to boot. Sorry.

 

[GDL]

All right, but I didn't make any special comment concerning charismatics in my original reply. I didn't put them into any certain category as far as the topic here is concerned.

What you are referring to, it seems to me, is the fact that not every Christian accepts the discipline of a denomination which itself accepts one of the kinds of authorities that I pointed to.

That's not unique to charismatic Christians, although I get your point that it may be more prevalent among charismatics than some other groups.

My point included the potential fallibility of both cessation and continuation. If the truth is not with one or the other in this matter, it seems it's somewhere in the middle.

My other point, included in my follow-up, is that Scripture properly understood, is still the authority under the Authority.

 

[Albion]

You're more informed on that aspect of the Christian experience, but my basic reaction is that charismatics inherently accept the authority of Scripture as much as any other Protestant does. In discussions with Pentecostal and/or Charismatic Christians, I find them constantly citing Scripture to explain their experiences and beliefs.

Exactly how the guidance of the Holy Spirit might fit could be a subject for discussion, but anyone who understands the nature of the HS knows that he does not operate outside of the word of God. As Christ said of the HS, he comes to guide and preserve the church and its people. That's not to say that he replaces or augments Scripture.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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.

There is baggage too. Which is why we must be 'semper reformanda' even if we are Catholic. Humility and good historical research allow us to figure out the baggage. But then there is the 'test everything and retain what is good' thing. Some things are good to retain. And some things you might think are baggage are actually both positive and ancient. Don't be hasty to toss out the baggage until you are sure.

By the way, the Latin word 'impedimentum' literally means 'heavy baggage'. So I get it. But you should be sure you don't toss out something of value and antiquity in the liturgy just because it's a bit heavy. I refer you again to Thomas Howard's 'Evangelical Is Not Enough'.

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.

I do not see you as snake oil peddlers. Well, there are some. as often found on TV. But in general I see earnest believers with some real positives, who could benefit from liturgy and the longer game it represents.

 

[Albion]

Manifestly it doesn't work. The diversity of incompatible beliefs generated by the adherents of this dogma is proof of that.

It works as well as, or better than, any other "authority" claimed by other Christians and/or church bodies. That is an indisputable fact, and it's already been pointed out that NONE, not one, of the Catholic-type churches agrees with the others on all matters of doctrine even though all of them claim to follow "Sacred Tradition" instead of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Albion]

My point included the potential fallibility of both cessation and continuation. If the truth is not with one or the other in this matter, it seems it's somewhere in the middle.

Well, I don't see how it can really be in the middle. Either tongues as they operated in the early church ceased or they did not. Continuationists simply stipulate that the couldn't have ceased, no matter what the history may be.

My other point, included in my follow-up, is that Scripture properly understood, is still the authority under the Authority.

Very good. I don't quite "get" what "authority under the Authority" means, but we seem to agree that the Authority that's accepted remains, even if there are disagreements among individuals.

 

[GDL]

You're more informed on that aspect of the Christian experience, but my basic reaction is that charismatics inherently accept the authority of Scripture as much as any other Protestant does. In discussions with Pentecostal and/or Charismatic Christians, I find them constantly citing Scripture to explain their experiences and beliefs.

Exactly how the guidance of the Holy Spirit might fit could be a subject for discussion, but anyone who understands the nature of the HS knows that he does not operate outside of the word of God. As Christ said of the HS, he comes to guide and preserve the church and its people. That's not to say that he replaces or augments Scripture.

I've found some citing and dealing seriously with Scripture to make their case, and many practicing extremely weak in Scripture and suggesting it's all about the Spirit and thus my attention to the Scriptures being very much off-base.

Agree with your second paragraph. Which all keeps us under the discussion re: authority.

 

[DamianWarS]

In fact, it's few which are.

I think constitutionally denominations are largely Sola Scriptura in principal but in action, they often manifest different values. I'm a Pentecostal and it perhaps is something I feel closer to so I'll comment on my experiences as a Pentecostal. Mainstream pentecostal churches like AOG (or PAOC which I'm a part of) are bible-based and their constitutions and by-laws I have combed through are linked back to scripture and all the "I's are dotted and "T's" are crossed so Sola Scriptura at the surface. However in practice, Pentecostals can be very experienced-based where simply because someone felt like a genuine experience it's validated often by marking the end of it with "...in the spirit" and this perspective is not vetted through the bible and it is good enough that the Spirit does "Spirit stuff". There is no doctrine of experience or official methodology of how to organize these things but they have a strong predisposition toward them. I would suggest this is their culture which cannot be biblically defined save for Paul's correction of the Corinthians in 1 Cor 14. This is a Pentecostal weakness perhaps or more broadly a Chrasmatic's weakness but it doesn't discredit the value of tongues being biblical-based because of the abuse. I suspect where tongues are the Charismatic thing they allow often to not come under scrutiny another denomination has their weakness that they are blinded to as well. Some sort of unique identity that is left unchallenged. The Church is full of examples of non-biblical practices that their members will defend very aggressively often to counter-gospel levels and they hide under various terms. I try and be a sola scriptura Pentecostal so when I seek to defend the practices that sweep under a 1st-century rug I discourage the abuse and applaud a biblical demonstration of the gifts. It is in fact a Sola Scriptura methodology that has allowed me to continue to value tongues where I feel the cessationist view has a much weaker Sola Scriptura case.

 

[GDL]

Well, I don't see how it can really be in the middle. Either tongues as they operated in the early church ceased or they did not. Continuationists simply stipulate that the couldn't have ceased, no matter what the history may be.

Sorry to be unclear. You're certainly correct. The middle I was thinking of is that there is an accurate concept of tongues that may or may not still be in play. I guess I was attempting to get to the discussion of what is and what is not tongues - as you say "as they operated in the early church..." Part of the discussion Scripturally is typically what this does and does not include. Much of the discussion between the 2 viewpoints ends up wrangling around in what this entails.

Very good. I don't quite "get" what "authority under the Authority" means, but we seem to agree that the Authority that's accepted remains, even if there are disagreements among individuals.

Yes, another unclear statement. Sorry again. This time attempting to say that Scripture is under the Authority of Christ. But I've also said that He is the Word, so Scripture is His thinking, and thus a part of Him IMO. But, as John said, we have not been told everything and all the books in the world could not contain all He said and did, so Scripture only holds what He desires it to hold.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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?

It sounds quite Lutheran. But I don't think it is historical. Here is how I see it.

God -> Moses and Aaron -> Torah
God -> David -> Psalms
God -> prophets -> prophetic books
Jesus -> apostles -> New Testament

In the last item the Church comes before the New Testament, just as Moses and David and the prophets came before the OT.

Jesus is the ultimate authority.

Jesus is proclaimed in the Scriptures. The OT speaks of him as much as the NT. And here I am reminded of Ezra and Nehemiah rediscovering the Torah and reading it to the people. So proclamation is a sound and necessary thing. But the Church does more than proclaim the Scriptures. The Church binds and loosens, teaches and corrects. It is not independent of Scripture, not over Scripture, but also not subject to every whim of someone shouting 'Sola Scriptura'.

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.