What is biblical authority...?

[Albion]

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.

It should. Yet I usually find that the continuationist refuses to deal with that point and takes the position instead that if there might have been one person somewhere at all times in history who was speaking in tongues, whether or not any such person is known to have actually existed...then it's good enough for that particular charismatic Christian to feel comfortable with the idea that tongues never did cease.

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.

That is true. However, the "problem," if that is the right word, is that the continuationists I have discussed this with DO claim that everything which bears upon their particular variety of Christianity (and proves it true) IS in Scripture.

 

[chevyontheriver]

This points to a major contention I have with Traditional church. They 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

The personal vs impersonal is very different from believing my experiences are theologically accurate. I am not sure my experiences are theologically accurate, and so I look to the community of experience to see if I am on a tangent or not. But mine is not an impersonal faith as a consequence of that. I do have a personal relationship with my redeemer even while I don't trust my own theological ideas farther than I can throw them. But I think you have run with the (traditional Protestant) idea of Catholics without Christ, which may afflict some low information Catholics but is manifestly not the problem we have. The bigger problem we actually have is too many Catholics thinking they are their own popes.

My faith is not an impersonal faith in the Church. The Church points me over and over again to Jesus. It's just that I am a deviant fellow who gets off track easily and the Church helps straighten me out where a more atomized 'Jesus and me' thinking would eventually all be about me having everything figured out and much less about following Jesus. Jesus gave the Church to me to keep me on track with him.

 

[GDL]

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

This is where I thought it would get interesting as stated in my comment to Steven.

As a Catholic, do you mean the Catholic Church when you say "the Church"?

Isn't part of the debate between Catholics and Reformed the succession issue that replaces "apostles" below, with the Catholic Church? Isn't this why there are many, including Messianics, seeking to get back to the Faith practiced by the Apostles?

Jesus -> apostles -> New Testament

 

[GDL]

It should. Yet I usually find that the continuationist refuses to deal with that point and takes the position instead that if there might have been one person somewhere at all times in history who was speaking in tongues, whether or not any such person is known to have actually existed...then it's good enough for that particular charismatic Christian to feel comfortable with the idea that tongues never did cease.

My experience as well. I've dealt with the ones practicing and have read much of the Scriptural work of those who support continuation with Scripture (this also responds to your last statement not quoted).

It's the "feelings" ones that I tend to turn off quickly. And in my experience they were more the norm, which is why I studied and read on the matter to some degree.

I think DamianWarS had some interesting things to say above re: this.

Didn't mean to trend this into a discussion re: charismatics, but it is a decent example of an issue re: the authority of Scripture.

 

[GDL]

Jesus gave the Church to me to keep me on track with him.

Did He do the same thing to Protestants and other groups? IOW, He gave to them the Church, but not the Roman Catholic Church version?

 

[chevyontheriver]

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.

I am the ONLY person I know who speaks of pedigree in relation to the Church hierarchy, so that was me. I think the pedigree concept is highly useful but I know of nobody else yet that uses it in relation to the Church.

But there is an idea that predated the Reformation with apparent roots in Augustine, and that is 'semper reformanda'.

Applying that to the 'pedigree' thing we know that we must cull the mutts from leadership in the Church. It may seem harsh, but mutts must be put out of leadership before they can breed more mutts. Great reforms like the Cluniac reform have restored the pedigree. Not that it was lost, but just diluted by the presence of so many mutts. We need to do that again and again though. Need to do it now even if there is not much appetite for it. So many mutts. So little time.

But that doesn't change the chain of authority. It just means the chain of authority must be used. I would say it is Jesus -> apostles -> Scriptures and then rinse and repeat with Scriptures until it comes out clean. Jesus keeps calling, and his call has an effect on some people. That call is from Scripture and from sacraments and from the community, none of which are dispensable.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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)

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. They were able to ask questions and get answers directly from the apostles which in my opinion holds some weight as to the correct interpretations of the scriptures. Denominations that hold to doctrines that contradict the earliest church writings should be disregarded as false interpretations of the scriptures. I think a lot of people don’t actually contemplate what would have to take place in order for the teachings of the apostles to be disregarded in the early church and continue to be disregarded for centuries. For example if reformed theology were the correct teachings of the apostles then that would mean that every Christian Church and all of its devoted servants to God would’ve had to agree to preaching a different gospel. These people risked their very lives for the spreading of the gospel and for such a widespread event to take place among thousands of servants of God spread out over thousands and thousands of miles apart from one another with absolutely no evidence of resistance whatsoever is absolutely unbelievable. It would be impossible for so many people who risked their lives for the spreading of the gospel who are spread out so far apart to all conspire together to agree to preaching a false gospel with no one standing against it. If such an event did take place we would see evidence of such a large resistance against it. It’s just not feasible.

 

[GDL]

But there is an idea that predated the Reformation with apparent roots in Augustine, and that is 'semper reformanda'.

Does the Catholic Church still practice 'semper reformanda' in regards to it's doctrine?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Did He do the same thing to Protestants and other groups? IOW, He gave to them the Church, but not the Roman Catholic Church version?

Are you all tracking with Jesus? Would you agree that all Protestants are tracking with Jesus? Would they all agree that you are tracking with Jesus? Jesus gave me the Catholic Church to keep me tracking with Him.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Does the Catholic Church still practice 'semper reformanda' in regards to it's doctrine?

In fits and starts yes it does. Do you?

 

[GDL]

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.

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?

 

[Albion]

Are you all tracking with Jesus? Would you agree that all Protestants are tracking with Jesus? Would they all agree that you are tracking with Jesus? Jesus gave me the Catholic Church to keep me tracking with Him.

We might ask if "all" Catholics are tracking with Jesus. I think it safe to say the answer is "no."

That being the case, we get to move on to your solution--choose one other church to join and say that it is better than all the rest. Because, after all, it's only one denomination and so it's bound to look more united and in agreement than ten thousand of the remainder (included among which is the Catholic Church).

 

[chevyontheriver]

This is where I thought it would get interesting as stated in my comment to Steven.

As a Catholic, do you mean the Catholic Church when you say "the Church"?

Yes, with allowance to include the Orthodox.

Isn't part of the debate between Catholics and Reformed the succession issue that replaces "apostles" below, with the Catholic Church?

Yes. but then some of you guys are emphatic that after the apostles died there was no succession. Others allow for succession, but it peters out somewhere along the way. There is enough debate within Protestantism to be interesting. Agree on that among yourselves and we can talk.

Isn't this why there are many, including Messianics, seeking to get back to the Faith practiced by the Apostles?

Everybody wants to be the early Church. But most want nothing at all to do with the Early Church Fathers. That doesn't add.

 

[chevyontheriver]

We might ask if "all" Catholics are tracking with Jesus. I think it safe to say the answer is "no."

The answer is 'no'. But then if I don't want to track with Jesus and I still want to call myself a Catholic I can do that unless I get myself excommunicated.

That being the case, we get to move on to your solution--choose one other church to join and say that it is better than all the rest. Because, after all, it's only one denomination and so it's bound to look more united and in agreement than ten thousand of the remainder (included among which is the Catholic Church).

That's funny.

 

[Albion]

As a Catholic, do you mean the Catholic Church when you say "the Church"?

Yes, with allowance to include the Orthodox.

and yet...the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics do not have the same dogmas or teachings. You still talk as though you're including the Orthodox as part of "the Church."

By comparison, you claim that "all" Protestants are in the same church but disagree over doctrines, ergo they are confused and divided unlike the one denomination you chose to affiliate with out of the many choices available--except that you don't even do that.

Although it was greeted by you with a laugh, if we compare "all" Catholics with one Protestant church (the same thing you did but in reverse)--let's say it's the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod--we see the result.

Your church (all Catholics) are in disunity. The WELS is united.

Which is better and more in accord with God's wishes, then? Obviously (according to the logic you explained to us) it's WELS.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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)

As per usual your thread has generated a fire hose of posts, most of them right on point. I have struggled to keep up but I have work to do so at the risk of becoming hopelessly behind here I have to stop for several hours.

 

[GDL]

Are you all tracking with Jesus? Would you agree that all Protestants are tracking with Jesus? Would they all agree that you are tracking with Jesus? Jesus gave me the Catholic Church to keep me tracking with Him.

I think every true Christian is "tracking with Jesus" as best they know how to do so, and that they continue to pursue how do do so better and better. I think this is what every true part of His Body is doing, no matter what group they are in.

Of course there are many examples in every group that is called "Church" who are not doing this.

The operative word in your last sentence seems to be "me". But the same can be said by Protestants, Evangelicals, Messianics, etc...

BTW, I know it's not meaningful to most, but I'm doing all I can to not be grouped in anything but His Body by His Word and Spirit. I'm not positing this as right, nor wrong, just that all this denomination stuff (Apologies for including Catholicism in this. I'm not meaning to offend you), is really difficult for me to go along with.

In fits and starts yes it does. Do you?

Yes. Which is why on another thread you were on, I mentioned that I have come to see through personal study in Scripture, some of what I'm reading from Catholics re: Salvation, for example, to be more in line with what I see in our Scriptures.

If our thinking does not end up being conformed to Scripture, then no matter where we attend, or what "Church" we identify ourselves with, we're not in an ultimately helpful place.

 

[GDL]

Yes. but then some of you guys

Pretty divisive referencing.

Everybody wants to be the early Church. But most want nothing at all to do with the Early Church Fathers. That doesn't add.

Many read the Early Church Fathers with what they deem to be proper Scriptural criticism.

 

[Clare73]

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.

Not in my neck of the woods.

The NT is grounded in the authority of its writers, who claim the writings ("all Scripture")
are God-breathed (2Tim 3:16).

"They have authority if, and only if,". . .And if the world were a cube. . .totally irrelevant.
They were written after the resurrection, they've always had authority. . .what's with the irrelevant "if" already?

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.

Where are you getting these arguments for Scripture? I've never heard them before, they are foreign.
The Holy Spirit doesn't bear witness that they are "perfect," we don't need a witness for that, he bears witness that they are, indeed, the word of God and true. They are the words of eternal life (John 6:68) spoken by Jesus, "they are Spirit and they are life (John 6:63).

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.

What's with the "perfection"?

That's not what the NT Scriptures are about. Where did you get this notion?
They are about the historical record of Jesus' life and teachings. Can we do without that?
They are about the doctrine received by Paul in the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:1-5). Can we do without that?
They're not last month's newspaper. . .they are God's abiding truth in which the body of Christ is to grow. You gotta' know it to grow in it.
Where do you get this niggardly view of God's word written? Not from the Holy Spirit, I can guarantee that.

Nothing stands outside or over God's word written that it may judge it.
We don't judge it, it judges us.

Sorry, Padre, you are dead wrong in your view of Scripture.
Stay tuned for Jesus' view of Scripture.

 

[TedT]

.

What if everybody got different parts right?

What if the people in Romans 1 who deny the truth because of their addictive love for evil also love religion and like to present as experts?

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; or your church doctrine without the leading of GOD means that as soon as you are certain of your sectarian doctrine, you are exposed to wolves.

Few are those who find the strait gate refers to the worldly church not just the nations of the world.