What is biblical authority...?

[GDL]

One post:

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.

Response:

Catholic input might be interesting here.

Catholic input:

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.

So, back to the observations and desires of the OP:

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

SaintSteven has chosen some time ago on another thread to ignore answering me directly (BTW, SS, if you'd like to discuss this privately, please feel free to private message me to see if we can overcome this between ourselves), so I'll throw this out to any others who may read this and carry on or modify his thoughts for discussion

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 to me that in seeking authority structure, the Catholic must insert "the Church" (meaning at minimum the Roman Catholic Church) higher up the authority ladder.

It also seems to me that the written Word of God is the expression of the Word of God Himself. So how do we separate them?

It also seems to me that the Gospel is not an authority under Christ separate from Scripture, but is a vital part of Scripture and has been in Scripture since Genesis. It is thus a part of the Word of God Himself.

It also seems to me that Believer and Church are essentially one and the same - the Body of Christ with Him as the Head. There is an issue re: authority structure in the Biblical Ekklesia, for which many denominations have different answers. But Biblically it seems there are no authorities who are not subordinate to the Word of God.

How is the Biblical authority structure for His Ekklesia not simply what I posited above (a bit expanded):

Jesus Christ / The Head of His Body - His Ekklesia / The Word of God (and thus Scripture) > the Body (with no unimportant parts working together in Christ by His Spirit ultimately not being deceived by human agenda, thinking and teaching, and therefore rejecting any and all of it)?

It seems it then remains in the discussion about sola, solo, or any other such things we might ask and discuss. Is it me and my Bible, me and my Bible with some structure in hierarchy, etc???).

Isn't it called the "canon" for a reason?

 

[GDL]

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?

Certainly part of the considerations. I'm a little cautious of how you might be using the word "religion" and what you may or may not be including in it. James 1:27 is an example of how the word as translated is used in Scripture. Is the true Christian Faith a religion?

 

[Strong in Him]

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

John Stott used to say that a Biblical passage means what its authors intended it to mean - as that isn't always clear to us, we have to study to find out.

In the chapters in question, all denominations will have a greater understanding of the meaning, and what the readers understood them to mean, if they read them as a whole and don't try to subtract verses to back a particular doctrine/church practice. So if a cessasionist is reading those chapters, they have to read all of them, not just isolate the verse "where they are prophecies, they will cease" and magnify that.

When we understand what the author wanted to convey, and how the Corinthians would have understood his words for them, THEN we ask the Spirit how we can apply this to our lives, if at all.

 

[Clare73]

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.

Jesus saw it differently regarding the authority of Scripture.

Jesus believed the OT was the "word of God" in every detail (Matthew 15:6; Luke 5:1, Luke 11:28; John 10:35)
He believed that every jot and tittle of the Law (the OT word for the Scriptures) was the very truth of God, vested with the authority of God and backed by by power of God (Matthew 5:17-19).
To emphasize that the OT was the infallible (wholly trustworthy and reliable), inerrant (wholly true) word of God, Jesus used his regular formula for solemn assertion ("Truly, truly I say to you") when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle (smallest stroke of the writing pen) will by any means disappear from the Law" (Scriptures). (Matthew 5:18; Luke 16:17)

He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Matthew 4:4-10; John 10:35). God's Word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means..."
(Mark 12:24; Matthew 12:3-5, Matthew 19:4, Matthew 21:16, Matthew 21:42, Matthew 9:13).

Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the Word of God. He lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Luke 4:17-21; Matthew 8:16-17, Matthew 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Luke 18:31; Mark 8:31, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33-34; Matthew 26:24; Luke 22:37; Matthew 26:53-56).
When he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Luke 24:44-47, Luke 24:25).
He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (John 5:39-40, John 5:46-47).

And in asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him, Jesus thereby bore divine authoritative witness to it.
Belief in the authority and truth of the Scriptures was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

And that included the historical accounts:
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15),
Jonah and the whale (Matthew 12:39-40),
creation account as God's words, though they are the writer's words (Matthew 19:4-6),
murder of Abel (Matthew 23:35),
Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:37-39),
burning bush and call of Moses (Mark 12:26),
Elijah and the provision for the widow (Luke 4:25-26),
Elisha and Naaman, the Syrian leper (Luke 4:27),
Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt (Luke 17:31-33).
plague of snakes and brazen serpent (John 3:14),
manna from heaven in the desert for 40 years (John 6:31, John 6:49),
Abraham (John 8:39-40),

According to Jesus, the Word of God written enjoys absolute authority.

I don't hope to improve on Jesus' view, and have made it my view also.

You should do the same.

 

[zoidar]

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.

Sure, but doubt theology is the main reason people don't find the strait gate . There are sheep and goats in every denomination, I'm sorry to say.

 

[Clare73]

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

That is correct. But since the 'oldest available" is not an original, we don't now that it was not in the original. It came from somewhere.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, they are true whether you trust them or not. They are true whether the Holy Spirit gives witness to them, or not. But they are not true if Jesus is not the risen Christ. Since he is, they are true, therefore he is the ground of their authority (i.e. they bear witness to him).

And how is that an improvement or difference over the way it's always been, with God as the ground of their authority?
Paul says they are God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).
Jesus said they are the word of God.

This extra-Biblical notion has the ear marks of a distinction without a difference. . .and for what purpose?

I realize this may seem an all too subtle distinction, but it really matters. We are never giving a defense of scripture. It is always a defense of the One who holds are hearts. If we try to defend the scriptures, we end up trying to defend things that might have nothing to do with him, because the two are not identical.

Since he is, they are true, therefore he is the ground of their authority (i.e. they bear witness to him). Ultimately, what we believe in is not the book, but the Person.

I realize this may seem an all too subtle distinction, but it really matters. We are never giving a defense of scripture. It is always a defense of the One who holds are hearts. If we try to defend the scriptures, we end up trying to defend things that might have nothing to do with him, because the two are not identical.

 

[Clare73]

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?

No.

First of all, your compliance with both will be imperfect.

To love yourself is to be committed to your well being. You don't need instructions for that. It's innate.
That's how you are to love your neighbor.

To love God with all heart, mind and soul is to love and obey him above all else, above family, above all people and above all interests, pursuits or goals.

 

[GDL]

Sure, but doubt theology is the main reason people don't find the strait gate .

But certainly a reason or I doubt Paul would be so troubled by wrong theology per Galatians and false gospels he spoke very aggressively against.

 

[GDL]

John Stott used to say that a Biblical passage means what its authors intended it to mean - as that isn't always clear to us, we have to study to find out.

In the chapters in question, all denominations will have a greater understanding of the meaning, and what the readers understood them to mean, if they read them as a whole and don't try to subtract verses to back a particular doctrine/church practice. So if a cessasionist is reading those chapters, they have to read all of them, not just isolate the verse "where they are prophecies, they will cease" and magnify that.

When we understand what the author wanted to convey, and how the Corinthians would have understood his words for them, THEN we ask the Spirit how we can apply this to our lives, if at all.

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?

 

[Clare73]

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.

Authority for truth, or authority for practice.
Our conscience is the authority for practice.

The Holy Spirit is the authority for truth, and he has not promised anyone they will have it all in this lifetime.

But they may have all that's been revealed in the word of God written on a limited topic.

 

[GDL]

No.

First of all, your compliance with both will be imperfect.

To love yourself is to be committed to your well being. You don't need instructions for that. It's innate.
That's how you are to love your neighbor.

Why, "No"? Will you elaborate more than you did?

Don't we all need instruction re: what is good to our well-being? The impulse may well be innate in most, but what is love needs Biblical definition, thus the seeming non-essential [to many if not most] becomes essential.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

That is correct. But since the 'oldest available" is not an original, we don't now that it was not in the original. It came from somewhere.

But it is possible that it was a later addition as well as possible it was in the original. We have to say we don’t know correct?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

No.

First of all, your compliance with both will be imperfect.

To love yourself is to be committed to your well being. You don't need instructions for that. It's innate.
That's how you are to love your neighbor.

To love God with all heart, mind and soul is to love and obey him above all else, above family, above all people and above all interests, pursuits or goals.

If the requirement is what you say it is to “love God” then if the compliance is imperfect than does that mean we don’t love God according to scripture? Or is that as long as we try to “love God” which seems to be the best anyone can do since according to what you just said the compliance is imperfect. I do get what your saying but it does call for us to be quite hypocritical in our approach. One minute we say we must love God and this is what it means. But then when we don’t do what is required we say it’s ok no one is perfect. Then that is used on a spectrum to justify all sorts of stuff. Instead of saying we don’t know or we are unsure we make up our own interpretations or justifications because saying we don’t know is just much to hard I guess. It’s always a little awkward to here anyone talk so matter of factly about issues of scripture when they themselves are only giving their own opinion or interpretations. We don’t know if the story of the adulterous woman is original or not but the fact that we don’t know should bring a pause because this is supposed to be Gods word. Now I’m not saying people should throw it out I’m just saying it should be careful to act so certain of things we all truly know we aren’t certain about but are unwilling to admit it. Thanks for talking btw. Hopefully this isn’t coming across as mean. I just like talking

 

[Clare73]

.

 

[Clare73]

But it is possible that it was a later addition as well as possible it was in the original. We have to say we don’t know correct?

It's not an issue. . .it presents no disagreement with Scripture in any way. . .I don't have to resolve it.

 

[Clare73]

Why, "No"? Will you elaborate more than you did?

Don't we all need instruction re: what is good to our well-being? The impulse may well be innate in most, but what is love needs Biblical definition, thus the seeming non-essential [to many if not most] becomes essential.

Good enough. . .it's written on the hearts of those in whom dwells the Holy Spirit of God.

 

[GDL]

it's written on the hearts of those in whom dwells the Holy Spirit of God.

being written on those who are abiding, being led, guided, taught, trained, not suppressing, etc., or written/downloaded and thus innate?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

It's not an issue. . .it presents no disagreement with Scripture in any way. . .I don't have to resolve it.

But if it’s even possible to have been into Gods word and it’s not Gods word isn’t that a problem? Just the fact that it happened at all. Wether it added more credence or took away something is irrelevant. If it’s not original it’s not from God. You can’t even see how this could be a issue for anyone who is concerned about the actual truth?

 

[zoidar]

But certainly a reason or I doubt Paul would be so troubled by wrong theology per Galatians and false gospels he spoke very aggressively against.

Wasn't that about circumcision and the keeping of the ceremonial laws? Not a problem in our churches today.