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?

[JehovahsWitness]

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?

Well there are those that interpret the thousands of denominations to be perfectly acceptable -- ie the human input part of the equation you yourself admit is an inevitable factor in the process.

Are you now going to say that group is WRONG and if so ..so what? I'm sure you are not going to take the final step and say their worship is not right... or if they are part of an organised religion that their religion is not holding to biblical standard and therefore is not acceptable fo God?

If Christendom in all its flavors IS acceptable to God (despite its doctrinal and denominations division) then this renders whatever point you are making purely academic (read effectively useless)

Since I presume you are not going to go full on Jehovah's Witness and start speaking in terms of "true" and "false" religion and since Christendom is evidently split into thousands of denominations but you (I presume) hold that they are all acceptable to God, despite holding an unworkable model...what possible relation does your academic position have with the real world?

NOTE when sincere Christians look to the bible and try to apply it they will be applying the bible model with all that entails; including following the bible model of how the Christian congregation was ORGANISED and how doctrinal unity was established and preserved

[historia]

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?

Well there are those that interpret the thousands of denominations to be perfectly acceptable

Okay. I'm not one of them.

As I've mentioned in our previous discussions, the ongoing and proliferating divisions brought about by the Reformation are, in my estimation, a bad thing.

Are you now going to say that group is WRONG

Yes.

I presume you are not going to go full on Jehovah's Witness

I would feel more comfortable going full on Catholic: While there is much that is good in all expressions of Christianity, the Protestant and Restorationist branches of Christianity have, to varying degrees, deficient and imperfect doctrines and practices. See CCC § 813-22, 838.

what possible relation does your academic position have with the real world?

On my position, Protestants and Restorationists would discard the assumption of sola scriptura -- and with it the unworkable model they have adopted for determining faith and practice -- which would bring an end to nearly all of these various denominations and sects. That seems pretty real world, no?

NOTE when sincere Christians look to the bible and try to apply it they will be applying the bible model with all that entails; including following the bible model of how the Christian congregation was ORGANISED and how doctrinal unity was established and preserved

But the same problem applies here as on every other issue: Sincere Christians arrive at different interpretations of what the Bible says regarding Church structure. The New Testament only touches on this issue indirectly, and so is underdetermined on the question of how the Christian community should be organized. This approach simply does not work.

[JehovahsWitness]

Well there are those that interpret the thousands of denominations to be perfectly acceptable

Okay. I'm not one of them.

Fair enough.

...The New Testament only touches on this issue indirectly, and so is underdetermined on the question of how the Christian community should be organized. This approach simply does not work.

Nine million Christians united in worship beg to differ.

Listen I have no poney in this race, Jehovah's Witnesses follow the bible model and maintained spiritual, fraternel organisational and doctrinal unity and seek no union with false religions.

If you think reforming some dogma held by non-Witnesses will get you all closer to what we already have, great. But it seems more logical to speak to those that have unity and ask us how we do it rather than attempting to repair that which was evidently broken to begin with.


JW

[historia]

The New Testament only touches on this issue indirectly, and so is underdetermined on the question of how the Christian community should be organized. This approach simply does not work.

Nine million Christians united in worship beg to differ.

Oh, I think a lot more than that -- at least an order of magnitude more -- would disagree with me. There are numerous Protestant and Restorationist groups who each think they are "simply following what the Bible says" regarding ecclesiastical polity, even though they disagree on what that should be.

That's the problem I was getting at back in post #61: In order to sustain the principle of sola scriptura, the members of these various groups are compelled to ignore or downplay the fact that the Bible is open to different interpretations. Admitting that there are other plausible ways to interpret the Bible on this, or any other, point undermines their position.

If you think reforming some dogma held by non-Witnesses will get you all closer to what we already have, great. But it seems more logical to speak to those that have unity and ask us how we do it rather than attempting to repair that which was evidently broken to begin with.

I think the Catholic Church provides a better and more ancient example of unity.

And what I'm proposing here is more like the opposite of "reform": It entails Protestants and Restorationists (Jehovah's Witnesses fit in that latter category) acknowledging that they are following a broken principle that was first put forward in the Reformation. In doing so, they would thereby be returning to what I would call historic Christianity.

If Jehovah's Witnesses are "simply" (again, emphasis on "simply") just "sincerely doing their best to understand and apply" the Bible to their lives -- and their leadership's interpretation of the Bible has no authority, as I've been reliably informed is the case by another Jehovah's Witnesses on this forum -- then it seems to me Jehovah's Witnesses are no different from the hundreds of other Protestant denominations and Restorationist sects out there, even if their leadership rigorously enforces adherence to their apparently non-authoritative teachings.

[JehovahsWitness]

I think the Catholic Church provides a better and more ancient example of unity.

Perhaps you should belatedly describe what you mean by "unity". I know the dictionary definition of unity but perhaps if you could outline say half a dozen critera that need to be met to lay claim to religious unity.

That way you won't be forced to ignore my clear and categoric statement that Jehovah's Witnesses have already achieved it . And it would be easier for me to see what you are aiming for and claim the Catholic church has obtained"

Of course I might have "not killing your German or Russian fellow church brethren during times of war." ... or "all members voluntarily holding a clear set if beliefs" on my list but dont mind me ...lets just see what you are talking about. In short, would you be so kind as to define your terms for future reference.

A truly united Christian religious organisation would have ...

1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...

[JehovahsWitness]

...their leadership's interpretation of the Bible has no authority {snip}

Of course the Jehovah's Witnesses governing body has authority, by definition that is what "governing" means. Having an authorative central body is the bible model and I've said repeatedly Jehovah's Witnesses follow the bible model.