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?

[Capbook]

With respect, you seem to be asserting or suggesting that because the inspired Word of God requires interpretation, then that means that the authority shifts to the interpreter

That might be putting it a bit too simply. But, yes, texts cannot in and of themselves be authoritative. As Mathison noted, all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. It's the interpretation that has authority, not the text by itself.

In which case the interpreter has to have some kind of authority, otherwise their interpretation has no relevance, as in the analogy above where I have my own interpretation of the driving laws.

As the text remains inspired, and if some kind of authority shift to the interpreter, rightly or misled is it then authoritative? As for me the very word of God, Scripture comes with the authority and sufficiency of God, and therefore Scripture is not subject to the interpretation of any man or body, but rather Scripture interprets itself.

[historia]

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation?

Do you disagree with that analysis? If not, then whose interpretation has authority?

No ones.

Okay, that certainly seems consistent with your perspective, so I appreciate that.

If all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, and, on your view, no one's interpretation has any authority, then the Bible has no practical authority. We might say it has a kind of abstract or theoretical authority. But, if your view is correct, the Bible doesn't in practice function as an authority.

We can appeal to others that our assumptions are correct, but that is all.

I appreciate your choice of words here, as I think the principle of sola scriptura is just that, an assumption. And an unfounded one, in my estimation.

[historia]

Even among non-trinitarian Christians, there is a great deal of disagreement on a whole host of theological issues -- more so than among Protestants. It seems that those who are the most insistent that they are "just following the Bible" actually disagree the most on what the Bible says.

How then, in practice, is the Bible functioning as the "final authority"?

Short answer, for a body or community of people, in practice, no.

Okay, good, I appreciate your honesty here.

For most of history, individuals haven't owned their own Bibles, for the simple reason that, prior to the printing press and modern paper, it was extraordinarily expensive to produce a book, especially one the size of the Bible. Clearly, the Bible was not originally intended to be read by individuals on their own.

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?

[historia]

As the text remains inspired, and if some kind of authority shift to the interpreter, rightly or misled is it then authoritative?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking here. Perhaps you can clarify.

Scripture is not subject to the interpretation of any man or body, but rather Scripture interprets itself.

Again, I would point you back to post #18. All texts require interpretation. No one gets to pretend that they don't interpret the Bible or that the Bible doesn't require interpretation. That's not a coherent perspective to hold.

[APAK]

Even among non-trinitarian Christians, there is a great deal of disagreement on a whole host of theological issues -- more so than among Protestants. It seems that those who are the most insistent that they are "just following the Bible" actually disagree the most on what the Bible says.

How then, in practice, is the Bible functioning as the "final authority"?

Short answer, for a body or community of people, in practice, no.

Okay, good, I appreciate your honesty here.

For most of history, individuals haven't owned their own Bibles, for the simple reason that, prior to the printing press and modern paper, it was extraordinarily expensive to produce a book, especially one the size of the Bible. Clearly, the Bible was not originally intended to be read by individuals on their own.

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.

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.

Since Guttenberg and the printing press, we have had the opportunity as individuals, to read and absorb the contents of the Book under the guidance of the Spirit of God, as intended. And still the forces within religious institutions still sell their wares, their versions of the truth that might not be the same as intended or should be understood.

So, as an individual, the Bible is functional and is the final authority of the truth. And it has taken me decades to be more that acquainted with it, as the truth and the final authority, as it is of course the word of God and not the words of men.

[Ross]

If all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, and, on your view, no one's interpretation has any authority, then the Bible has no practical authority. We might say it has a kind of abstract or theoretical authority. But, if your view is correct, the Bible doesn't in practice function as an authority.

There is little disagreement within Christology of the Bible's moral standards. Such morality and the perception of the good and the bad is the essence and true beauty of Christianity, and as such the Bible glows as from God. In this sense the authority is supreme and real.

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

Some scripture is written so clearly that it is a disgrace not to accept the purity of it's truth. This is why I love interlinears. Other verses and texts present huge problems from lost languages and diction. One must balance between both.

But your original post was on the principle that the Bible is/was inspired of God. I am not sure that you actually believe this?

I think the principle of sola scriptura is just that, an assumption. And an unfounded one, in my estimation.

If scripture really was/is from God, inspired, then without it, what do we have left? Corrupt men to guide us? 'Churches' with histories of burning people to the stake for heresy, financial and spiritual oppression, war mongering, theocratic dictators pretending to be God's ordained representatives?

I do not believe that Protestantism was directly a work of God to restore original Christianity, but at least it brought the Bible to the 'common man.'

[historia]

Where did you get the idea that our mission as Christians is "simply" (emphasis on "simply") "to sincerely do our best to understand and apply" the Bible?

My brain. I got the idea by reasoning using my brain.

Touché. But I'm left wondering why your brain leapt to this particular conclusion, as it isn't obvious.

But let me see if I'm doing this right: 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?

[JehovahsWitness]

Where did you get the idea that our mission as Christians is "simply" (emphasis on "simply") "to sincerely do our best to understand and apply" the Bible?

My brain. I got the idea by reasoning using my brain.

Touché. But I'm left wondering why your brain leapt to this particular conclusion, as it isn't obvious.

But let me see if I'm doing this right: 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.

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.




JW

[Capbook]

As the text remains inspired, and if some kind of authority shift to the interpreter, rightly or misled is it then authoritative?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking here. Perhaps you can clarify.

I'll rephrase, As for me the Bible always remain inspired or correct, and if I did not misunderstood your statement about some kind of authority shift to the reader/interpreter, good if the interpretation is right, when not is it still authoritative?

Scripture is not subject to the interpretation of any man or body, but rather Scripture interprets itself.

Again, I would point you back to post #18. All texts require interpretation. No one gets to pretend that they don't interpret the Bible or that the Bible doesn't require interpretation. That's not a coherent perspective to hold.

I have a resource Bible that almost every text placed referenced verses related to the read text, specially the NRSVue. It would quite lead to a minimal reader's interpretation.

[historia]

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.

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.

Since Guttenberg and the printing press, we have had the opportunity as individuals, to read and absorb the contents of the Book under the guidance of the Spirit of God, as intended.

It really wasn't until the 18th or 19th Century that books became cheap enough for ordinary individuals to have their own Bible.

Therefore it seems quite strange to me to say that this is the "intended" way Scripture was meant to function, when for thousands of years -- from the early Israelite community until just a couple of centuries ago -- it couldn't have functioned that way.

Also, nowhere in the Bible does it say that individuals are meant to read Scripture on their own, making the assertion that it should be that way a bit of a self-defeating argument.