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?

[historia]

There is little disagreement within Christology of the Bible's moral standards.

. . .

However when we examine Bible doctrine, this is where black and white and grey have more complications.

We're in a great deal of agreement on these two points. I think a lot of Christians -- including more than a few in this forum -- aren't willing to admit that the Bible has grey areas and complications, because they need it to be a black-and-white source of authority to bolster their prior theological conclusions. That's why I think we have people here unwilling even to admit that the Bible requires interpretation. Any uncertainty undermines their whole position.

But any serious assessment of the Bible reveals that it is clearly not a work of systematic theology. It's not designed to answer all of the theological questions later Christians would have. It's just not that kind of book.

Saying the Bible should be the sole source for Christian doctrine is like saying the Constitution should be the sole law code for the United States. That's not the role of the Constitution within the American legal system, so trying to make it serve that role is going to cause problems.

If scripture really was/is from God, inspired, then without it, what do we have left?

My critique of sola scriptura is about the sola rather than the scriptura. I'm not arguing Christians can operate "without" the Bible, but rather that the Bible cannot function as the sole authority for determining Christian faith and practice.

[APAK]

It seems to me, then, on your view, God gave the Christian community a book that couldn't function by itself as the final authority. Agreed?

Correct, although saying this I also mean that the Book(s) was originally intended and designed to be given to all individuals, as soon as feasible, either as the written text, and as you said was expensive and not until the printing press etc., or by public mouth, and that really never happened.

I'm not sure why you think the public reading of Scripture never happened. The Early Church Fathers bear witness to the fact that the Scriptures -- including both Old and New Testaments -- were read aloud during services, apparently from the very beginning. That's still true today, of course.

That's not true at all. Then and even today. If this topic was not so sobering and serious, I would be laughing om the floor, quite literally. You seem to lack the understanding of what they actually preached from the pulpit, or deliberately blind to it.

After the books of the Book were canonized, they should have been dispersed to the public.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Again, until relatively recently, it would have been prohibitively expensive to give each individual their own copy of the Bible. And, prior to the modern period, literacy levels were very low, so most of the public couldn't read anyway.

We don't need to invent villains or conspiracies to explain that situation: Both of those factors were simply the consequence of how expensive it was to produce hand-written copies of books on papyrus or vellum.

It doesn't make sense, then, to say Church leaders prior to the last couple of centuries "should" have done something that wasn't feasible. Also, at least since the Middle Ages, literate Christians could read the Bible in their parish church, where a secured copy was often made publicly available on a desk or lectern.

The thing is that powerful men of/within the religious institutions and 'churches' led and controlled the flow and communication of the Book, and its contents from the beginning. They never let go of this control. After the books of the Book were canonized, they should have been dispersed to the public. The temptation of power and control was too great for this to happen however. So what occurred were even alterations of the original text to suit the prevailing religious opinion, usually as a collective effort, to dominate the religious institution of Christianity. The RCC led the way, and tightly controlled the truth for themselves, to control and govern the ignorant masses, and by force, imprisonment, murder, and the confiscation of property and possessions.

Sorry, but that sounds more like bad Protestant propaganda than a dispassionate attempt at history.

It's beyond any Protestant propaganda I'm afraid. You might be in deep denial.
--------------------------------------------------
Now this topic is surely making laps now, and we both know you are here to defend the major errors of the RCC, from the start. They had a controlling agenda and major interests in political, social and economic gains, and you must know this already.

The words of God were given to and for each individual orally, by the prophets and then to others, personally and in small groups, for thousands of years without any text in front of them. And without any monetary cost incurred by them.

I would not get so fixated in the written text that was not even written down or available most of the time. The words of God were still functional as the sole source of truth, given orally or on reading materials, then and today. It is given for the individual soul to know and read into their hearts and mind. No human proxy can replace the Spirit of God to know the truth in scripture for the individual. No religious institution calling themselves Christian can bring salvation to a person, God does that and usually through his spoken word.

The Bible is not just a holy Book for understanding, and to be kept in 'safe hands', concerning God and his Son, from an intellectual distance as I sense this is your style. It is meant to stir the hearts of minds of every individual who reads it with the Spirit of God residing within them. This is the part I believe you neglect to know or write about. It is key to know it is always functional and the ultimate source of truth.

And this is the sole reason why scripture, the Book, is for our Spiritual walk every day, and no religious committee, diocese or RCC association or even Protestant version can do that for one's heart and soul, every day. They are not really accountable and responsible for their souls. Releasing the word of God to the people is the purpose of the Church elders and those in keeping the holy writ. It's the best thing they can do for a soul, who is wanting to know about God and his plan for their salvation.

[Ross]

There is little disagreement within Christology of the Bible's moral standards.

. . .

However when we examine Bible doctrine, this is where black and white and grey have more complications.

We're in a great deal of agreement on these two points. I think a lot of Christians -- including more than a few in this forum -- aren't willing to admit that the Bible has grey areas and complications, because they need it to be a black-and-white source of authority to bolster their prior theological conclusions.

Thank you for that.

Saying the Bible should be the sole source for Christian doctrine is like saying the Constitution should be the sole law code for the United States. That's not the role of the Constitution within the American legal system, so trying to make it serve that role is going to cause problems.

Since when and indeed how is it appropriate to compare Christianity to the American Constitution?

If scripture really was/is from God, inspired, then without it, what do we have left?

My critique of sola scriptura is about the sola rather than the scriptura. I'm not arguing Christians can operate "without" the Bible, but rather that the Bible cannot function as the sole authority for determining Christian faith and practice.

I note that in your replies to me, you answer some of my comments and completely ignore others. I am fine with that. It is for readers of this to determine if this is ethical.

In the last comment quoted I said:

If scripture really was/is from God, inspired, then without it, what do we have left?

Could you answer this one please?

[historia]

Correct, although saying this I also mean that the Book(s) was originally intended and designed to be given to all individuals, as soon as feasible, either as the written text, and as you said was expensive and not until the printing press etc., or by public mouth, and that really never happened.

I'm not sure why you think the public reading of Scripture never happened. The Early Church Fathers bear witness to the fact that the Scriptures -- including both Old and New Testaments -- were read aloud during services, apparently from the very beginning. That's still true today, of course.

That's not true at all. Then and even today.

Sure it is.

Justin Martyr, for example, writing in the mid-2nd Century, tells us:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place. And the memoirs of the apostles [i.e., gospels] or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs us and exhorts us to imitate these good things.

Not only is this evidence that the Scriptures were publicly read at length in the early Church, but its also evidence that there was specifically a position called "the reader" whose responsibility it was to publicly read from Scripture during services. Tertullian, Commodianus, Cyprian, and other Early Church Fathers also mention this position. Clearly, the Scriptures were publicly read in the early Church.

That position and the practice of publicly reading from the Old and New Testaments during the liturgy still exist today. Here's the readings for this Sunday, the third Sunday in Lent (Year C), and a video of the mass from Australia, where those passages are read aloud to the congregation. If you grew up Catholic, as you say, you know that's true.

You seem to lack the understanding of what they actually preached from the pulpit, or deliberately blind to it.

What anyone may or may not preach from the pulpit during the homily doesn't alter the fact that the Scriptures have been -- and continue to be -- publicly read aloud to the congregation during the liturgy.

Your claim, then, that this "really never happened" is demonstrably false.

Sorry, but that sounds more like bad Protestant propaganda than a dispassionate attempt at history.

It's beyond any Protestant propaganda I'm afraid. You might be in deep denial.

No, as you can see from the earlier part of my reply, I'm just familiar with the primary historical sources and the relevant scholarship on many aspects of Christian history.

Now this topic is surely making laps now, and we both know you are here to defend the major errors of the RCC, from the start.

The position I am advancing here is in no way unique to Catholicism. It's also held by the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the churches of the East, and even most Anglican churches.

I would not get so fixated in the written text that was not even written down or available most of the time. The words of God were still functional as the sole source of truth, given orally or on reading materials, then and today.

Here we are in greater agreement. Historically, for both Jews and Christians, Scripture and oral Tradition are authoritative. The Bible says as much. That's why sola scriptura, Scripture alone, is a departure from how the People of God have historically practiced the faith.

[historia]

According to the Bible, Judas Maccabeus was honorable and acted well when he prayed for the dead -- a practice Jews and Christians have observed ever since. So, in sincerely doing our best to understand and apply this episode from the Bible to our lives, we should pray for the dead, too, yes?

I think we have gone over this already...we both agree that everyone (read every brain) is free to read and interpret scripture as they see fit. That's the "human input" we both agreed was inevitable in the equation.

Well, I think we both "agree" on this in so far as people are free to do whatever they like. But I guess I'm more interested in what Christians should do, not just what they can do.

Everyone obviously won't come to the same conclusions. If praying for the dead is someone's sincerely conclusions so be it. Some will conclude from scripture that if you believe them wrong - keep it to yourself. Others (like Jehovah's Witnesses) will conclude (from their interpretation of scripture) that if you believe them wrong ... speak up and try and set them straight.

In any case, both cannot be true ("you should pray for the dead" and "you should NOT pray for the dead"). Which is right and which is wrong IS (I believe) in scripture ready to be revealed when needed by the ultimate authority, God to whom he so wishes.

Okay, just keeping with this example for illustration purposes, what is the alternative interpretation of the passage I cited above from the Bible concerning Judas Maccabeus that could lead someone to the conclusion that praying for the dead is not something Christians should do? It's a pretty straight-forward text, lauding him for praying for the dead. How is that not an example we should follow?

[historia]

Since when and indeed how is it appropriate to compare Christianity to the American Constitution?

The analogy is between the Bible and the Constitution. Both function as an authority within their respective community.

As I noted back in post #30, this is not the most exact analogy.

I note that in your replies to me, you answer some of my comments and completely ignore others.

Indeed, it's not my intention to write a sentence-by-sentence rebuttal to your posts, or anything like that. Rather, I'm writing a general response and just highlighting select quotations so you have some context for what I am referring to. Like many participants here, I have neither the time nor the interest to comment on everything everyone writes.

In the last comment quoted I said:

If scripture really was/is from God, inspired, then without it, what do we have left?

Could you answer this one please?

In this hypothetical scenario, are we presuposing that the books that make-up Scripture never existed in the first place? Or, do they exist, but just aren't considered to be Scripture -- as is the case even now with, for example, the Epistle of Barnabas or the Shepherd of Hermas?

[JehovahsWitness]

Well, I think we both "agree" on this in so far as people are free to do whatever they like. But I guess I'm more interested in what Christians should do, not just what they can do.

I already said they should do their best to interpret and apply what they read. What more can they do?

[JehovahsWitness]

Okay, just keeping with this example for illustration purposes, what is the alternative interpretation of the passage I cited above from the Bible concerning Judas Maccabeus that could lead someone to the conclusion that praying for the dead is not something Christians should do? It's a pretty straight-forward text, lauding him for praying for the dead. How is that not an example we should follow?

So what is your point ? That the bible can only be interpreted in one way? Or that some parts of it are plain enough but others not so much. That those that seem to be evidently misinterpreting verses are insincere? Or that the bible is not fit for purpose as it does not seem to automatically engender unity of thought in its readership ?

This forum is evidence enough there is no verse in the bible that cannot be interpreted in a variety of ways ...Jesus says "I'm gods son " and that is taken to mean he is God. The word "death" in the bible is taken to mean continued LIFE (in a different form) and Jesus command to love your neighbour is utterly confusing to 90% of Christians when war is declared (can LOVE mean KILL if they are Russian and I'm Ukrainian?)

In short the plainest of verses can give birth to a thousand different views and probably 100 different denominations - which may or may not come to blows over the issue.

But my question to you is ..."So? So what?!"



JW

[historia]

Well, I think we both "agree" on this in so far as people are free to do whatever they like. But I guess I'm more interested in what Christians should do, not just what they can do.

I already said they should do their best to interpret and apply what they read. What more can they do?

They could decide to not accept this assumption that we are "simply to sincerely do our best to understand and apply" the Bible to our lives. That's not what Jesus or Paul told us to do. It's not what Christians have historically done.

If that approach leads to "thousands of interpretations" and "hundreds of denominations" -- as we both know it does -- then perhaps there is something wrong with the assumption itself, no?

Okay, just keeping with this example for illustration purposes, what is the alternative interpretation of the passage I cited above from the Bible concerning Judas Maccabeus that could lead someone to the conclusion that praying for the dead is not something Christians should do? It's a pretty straight-forward text, lauding him for praying for the dead. How is that not an example we should follow?

So what is your point ?

I think this example illustrates an important point, so I'm interested in your interpretation of this passage. I take it you don't pray for the dead, and you said earlier that, when Jehovah's Witnesses believe someone is wrong, they will "speak up and try and set them straight." So, set me straight: How is this passage from the Bible concerning Judas Maccabeus not an example we should follow?

That the bible can only be interpreted in one way? Or that some parts of it are plain enough but others not so much. That those that seem to be evidently misinterpreting verses are insincere?

To the contrary, I have a great deal of sympathy for the various ways Protestants and Restorationists interpret the Bible. I have no doubt everyone here is well-meaning and sincere in their (conflicting) interpretations.

Or that the bible is not fit for purpose as it does not seem to automatically engender unity of thought in its readership ?

I think the Bible is perfectly fit for the purpose it was intended to fulfill. The problem here is that, since the Reformation, some (but not all) Protestants and (especially) Restorationists now want it to serve a different purpose, in that they want it to be the sole source for determining Christian faith and practice.

This forum is evidence enough there is no verse in the bible that cannot be interpreted in a variety of ways

I think that's something of an exaggeration. But it is certainly true that this forum is a great example of differing interpretations of the Bible.

I would suggest to you, though, that this is largely the case because the Bible itself is open to many different interpretations. And, importantly, that's not as true with other types of texts.

Consider, for example, Studies in the Scriptures (or comparable modern-day Jehovah's Witness text) or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If we asked everyone on this forum to read and study both of those texts, and then asked them what each text says Christians ought to believe, we wouldn't end up with anywhere near the number of conflicting interpretations of either text that we find when we ask those same people what they think the Bible says Christians ought to believe.

That's not an accident. These texts were clearly intended to instruct Christians on what they ought to believe and do. And if everyone followed one of them, we'd have rather consistent beliefs and practices. Either of these texts could, in theory, serve as the sole source for determining Christian faith and practice.

The Bible isn't written in that way. That, in itself, indicates it wasn't intended to be the sole source for determining Christian faith and practice.

[marke]

Every Christian has an obligation to seek God for wisdom and the proper interpretation of Scripture and then to believe God no matter what anyone else thinks.