Is the Bible your ultimate authority?

[historia]

From Keith Mathison, an American Reformed theologian:

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone.

In that article -- among other works he has published -- Mathison seeks to defend the Protestant principle of sola scriptura. But it seems to me that here he actuals reveals a fundamental flaw with that principle: No text can, in and of itself, be authoritative.

Question for debate:

Even if we hold that the Bible is inspired by God and essential to the life of the Christian community, can the Bible be the ultimate authority for determining Christian faith and practice if, as Mathison notes, it cannot be an authority by itself?

[Ross]

God is my ultimate authority, coupled with my innate sense of right and wrong and good and bad.

I do not however seek God in todays churches.

I would rather discover him in the scriptures of the Bible, which if not quite perfect and have staggered and stumbled a little in the eons of time, stand out as a beacon of light compared to the evil of the history of organised religion.

[Tcg]

From Keith Mathison, an American Reformed theologian:

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone.

In that article -- among other works he has published -- Mathison seeks to defend the Protestant principle of sola scriptura. But it seems to me that here he actuals reveals a fundamental flaw with that principle: No text can, in and of itself, be authoritative.

Question for debate:

Even if we hold that the Bible is inspired by God and essential to the life of the Christian community, can the Bible be the ultimate authority for determining Christian faith and practice if, as Mathison notes, it cannot be an authority by itself?

The doctrine of the Bible's supreme authority is known as Sola Scriptura, which means that the Bible alone is the final authority for life. However, this does not mean that there are no other authorities in life, such as parents, governors, and church leaders.
The Bible can be used to guide people in all areas of their lives, including how they approach work, family life, finances, and relationships with neighbors and to eternal life.

Jhn 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Jhn 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The problem here is that the author of John couldn't possibly be talking about the Bible. It had not yet been compiled. The book would of course be the gospel John. The claim would be limited to that small slice of what we would come to call the Bible.


Tcg

Yes, the "book" (biblion) referred by apostle John would have been "a written document", where Jesus' many other signs were also written.

G975 (Thayer)
βιβλίον
biblion
Thayer Definition:
1) a small book, a scroll, a written document
2) a sheet on which something has been written
2a) a bill of divorcement

First a question, why do you claim it was written by the apostle John?

Secondly, none of this addresses my point. The author of what we call gospel John was not referring to the Bible as a whole. He couldn't possibly have as it wasn't yet compiled.

historia can correct me if I'm wrong, but the subject addresses the whole Bible. Not sure if they include the deuterocanonical books or not, I would guess so. In any case, the subject is not limited to the one book (biblion) gospel John.


Tcg

[Capbook]

From Keith Mathison, an American Reformed theologian:

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone.

In that article -- among other works he has published -- Mathison seeks to defend the Protestant principle of sola scriptura. But it seems to me that here he actuals reveals a fundamental flaw with that principle: No text can, in and of itself, be authoritative.

Question for debate:

Even if we hold that the Bible is inspired by God and essential to the life of the Christian community, can the Bible be the ultimate authority for determining Christian faith and practice if, as Mathison notes, it cannot be an authority by itself?

The doctrine of the Bible's supreme authority is known as Sola Scriptura, which means that the Bible alone is the final authority for life. However, this does not mean that there are no other authorities in life, such as parents, governors, and church leaders.
The Bible can be used to guide people in all areas of their lives, including how they approach work, family life, finances, and relationships with neighbors and to eternal life.

Jhn 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Jhn 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The problem here is that the author of John couldn't possibly be talking about the Bible. It had not yet been compiled. The book would of course be the gospel John. The claim would be limited to that small slice of what we would come to call the Bible.


Tcg

Yes, the "book" (biblion) referred by apostle John would have been "a written document", where Jesus' many other signs were also written.

G975 (Thayer)
βιβλίον
biblion
Thayer Definition:
1) a small book, a scroll, a written document
2) a sheet on which something has been written
2a) a bill of divorcement

First a question, why do you claim it was written by the apostle John?

Secondly, none of this addresses my point. The author of what we call gospel John was not referring to the Bible as a whole. He couldn't possibly have as it wasn't yet compiled.

historia can correct me if I'm wrong, but the subject addresses the whole Bible. Not sure if they include the deuterocanonical books or not, I would guess so. In any case, the subject is not limited to the one book (biblion) gospel John.


Tcg

Yes, the Gospel of John is traditionally attributed to John the Apostle, but many scholars now believe that he did not write it.
Traditional view, the Gospel of John is traditionally attributed to John the Apostle, who was a disciple of Jesus.
Early witnesses to this tradition include Justin Martyr, Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus.
Contemporary view, only a minority of contemporary scholars believe that John the Apostle wrote the gospel.
Most scholars conclude that he wrote none of the Johannine works.
The language of the Gospel and its theology suggest that the author may have lived later than John.
Other considerations, some have suggested that the author is an idealized literary figure, the ideal Christian disciple.
The prevailing belief is that John's name serves as a mere placeholder.

Yes, Apostle John not also been referring it to the Scriptures. It's possible that John the Apostle used a scribe, or amanuensis, when writing the Gospel of John. This is because scribes were common at the time and Paul also used a scribe to write his letters. Yes, before the compilation of the Bible.

[1213]

It must be read, but not necessary interpreted, we can let the Bible explain what it means.

Sorry, but that's simply naive. All texts require interpretation....

Can you give one example and an explanation why it must be interpreted?

[historia]

I think it is folly to deny that the Old Testament is the undeniable Word of God if one claims to be a Christian and a believer in God.

Indeed, and the question in the OP already assumes as much, as I begin with the assertion that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is inspired by God.

The question I'm asking in the OP, though, centers on Mathison's observations regarding the nature of texts in general, and Scripture in particular:

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone.

Perhaps we can start there. Is there anything in that analysis you think is wrong?

[Capbook]

I think it is folly to deny that the Old Testament is the undeniable Word of God if one claims to be a Christian and a believer in God.

Indeed, and the question in the OP already assumes as much, as I begin with the assertion that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is inspired by God.

The question I'm asking in the OP, though, centers on Mathison's observations regarding the nature of texts in general, and Scripture in particular:

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone.

Perhaps we can start there. Is there anything in that analysis you think is wrong?

I think who might that "someone" be? If we interpret the Scripture on our own, can we be sure that's what the intended message of the author?

Some follow these steps of interpretation;
L - Literally,
I - Illuminated by the Holy Spirit,
G - Grammatical construction,
H - Historical background,
T - Teaching unity,
S - Scriptural harmony.

But I would prefer Bible text interpreted/supported by Bible text, no or less man's contribution. That would serve as Bible functions as an authority.

[JehovahsWitness]

How can the Bible be the ultimate authority and yet result in so many divergent teachings?

Because the bible as a book by definition, allows its readers the liberty to interpret passages as they wish. This does not diminish it's authority any more than someone that speeds diminishes the authority of driving laws, it simply means those laws can be ignored (or interpreted) as individuals see fit.

[historia]

Sorry, but that's simply naive. All texts require interpretation....

Can you give one example and an explanation why it must be interpreted?

Let me start with the explanation: All reading entails interpretation.

From the National Council of Teachers of English:

Reading is a sociocultural activity in which readers construct meaning from text through the lenses of culture and personal experience (Barton, 2007; Gutierrez, 2008; Perry, 2012). Contrary to popular conceptions of the act of reading, readers do not merely "decode" or "unlock" meanings encoded by authors. Even a simple word like dog is interpreted through the lens of personal experience which, in turn, is filtered through cultural representations of dogs and other animals. This does not mean, however, that readers can simply make up meanings without regard to the author's intentions. Readers must construct responsible readings (Rosenblatt, 1978/1994) that take account of the text, the reader's assessment of the author's intentions, the reader's background knowledge and experience, the sociocultural context, and the activity of which reading is always a part.

. . .

Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language (2nd ed.).
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978/1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.
Perry, K. (2012). What is literacy?–A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 50–71.

When you read Scripture -- or any other text -- you're not just passively receiving information. Rather, you are actively constructing meaning from the text, based on your own cultural assumptions, background knowledge, point of view, etc. -- which inherently entails interpretation. That's simply how language works.

As for an example, let's start with the very first verse of the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Or, at least that's how it's traditionally rendered. Arguably the more accurate translation is the one we find in the NRSV: "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth." Since translation itself necessarily entails some level of interpretation, we are already in the process of interpretation before we even start reading the Bible in English.

How one interprets this verse and the ones following it depends, then, on which translation you use, what you think the literary genre of this text is, what hermeneutic you've chosen for understanding this creation account and its relationship to other texts in the Bible, etc. All of that entail from start to finish interpretation.

[historia]

To imply that "authoritative" means devoid of all human input, is itself unscriptural since Jesus urged the reader to use discernement.

I don't disagree, as neither I nor Mathison is arguing that the Bible has no authority whatsoever.

I also appreciate your choice of words here, as "input" reflects what I just mentioned above regarding the active role the reader must take when interpreting Scripture.

But, if Mathison is correct here -- and I think his observations are undeniable -- that the Bible only functions as an authority when it is read and interpreted by someone, then would you not agree that who that "someone" is and the "input" they bring to the text is absolutely critical?

Because the bible as a book by definition, allows its readers the liberty to interpret passages as they wish.

Okay, but doesn't that then mean that the reader is the ultimate authority?

This does not diminish it's authority any more than someone that speeds diminishes the authority of driving laws, it simply means those laws can be ignored (or interpreted) as individuals see fit.

But, in practice, I can't just interpret the law as I see fit. If the police pull me over for driving 55 MPH in a 25 MPH zone, and I go before a judge to contest the ticket, arguing that my interpretation of the driving laws is that I can drive as fast as I want wherever I want, is the judge going to waive my ticket?

[Bible_Student]

Sorry, but that's simply naive. All texts require interpretation....

Can you give one example and an explanation why it must be interpreted?

Let me start with the explanation: All reading entails interpretation.

From the National Council of Teachers of English:

Reading is a sociocultural activity in which readers construct meaning from text through the lenses of culture and personal experience (Barton, 2007; Gutierrez, 2008; Perry, 2012). Contrary to popular conceptions of the act of reading, readers do not merely "decode" or "unlock" meanings encoded by authors. Even a simple word like dog is interpreted through the lens of personal experience which, in turn, is filtered through cultural representations of dogs and other animals. This does not mean, however, that readers can simply make up meanings without regard to the author's intentions. Readers must construct responsible readings (Rosenblatt, 1978/1994) that take account of the text, the reader's assessment of the author's intentions, the reader's background knowledge and experience, the sociocultural context, and the activity of which reading is always a part.

. . .

Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language (2nd ed.).
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978/1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.
Perry, K. (2012). What is literacy?–A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 50–71.

When you read Scripture -- or any other text -- you're not just passively receiving information. Rather, you are actively constructing meaning from the text, based on your own cultural assumptions, background knowledge, point of view, etc. -- which inherently entails interpretation. That's simply how language works.

As for an example, let's start with the very first verse of the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Or, at least that's how it's traditionally rendered. Arguably the more accurate translation is the one we find in the NRSV: "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth." Since translation itself necessarily entails some level of interpretation, we are already in the process of interpretation before we even start reading the Bible in English.

How one interprets this verse and the ones following it depends, then, on which translation you use, what you think the literary genre of this text is, what hermeneutic you've chosen for understanding this creation account and its relationship to other texts in the Bible, etc. All of that entail from start to finish interpretation.

Technically it is like you say, yet there is no need for people to dissect language in everyday conversation.

While it is true that the entire Bible is regarded as divinely inspired, it was not composed in obscure dialects that are challenging for the average person to grasp; rather, it was written in languages familiar to a significant portion of the global populace at that time. Modern translations make it quite accessible; For instance, we can easily read and comprehend numerous straightforward dialogues that Jesus had with real individuals during His time on earth, in regions that were once part of Israel.

While some words and expressions in the Bible may require interpretation for different reasons, many are quite straightforward and resonate with our contemporary thoughts and ways of articulating ideas. In fact, numerous popular expressions we frequently use today in various languages trace their roots back to biblical phrases. We encounter these phrases in the Bible and instantly recognize their meanings.