who is your authority?

[kayanne]

Hi! This is my very first post here. :wave: I have truly been enjoying reading through various posts here, as I have been on a "personal mission" for the past few months to learn more about others' beliefs. One question I am often asked when talking with Catholics is "Who is your authority on matters of faith?" I thought the obvious and sufficient answer was "the Bible." Catholics are quick to point out that the Bible is not able to interpret itself, (hence the numerous various protestant denominations and opinions of particular verses), whereas they believe that their church (including Sacred Tradition, catechism, and Pope) are their authority regarding interpreting the Bible. They claim that "my interpretation" is not authoritative (I guess I would have to agree, since I am not infallible), so they ask again, "Who is your authority?"

How would you answer this? :scratch:

[seebs]

My answer is that I do not have any infallible authority, but that I try to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit as best I can.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I would tell them that with proper exegetics that Sola Scriptura is the only authority that I need. If they try to explain why Sola Scriptura isn't good enough I would kindly explain that God breathed scripture interpreted by the Holy Spirit in me (1 Cor 2, 1 John 2:27) is enough for me. If they can't accept that along with the scriptures referenced then there is no need to defend yourself any further.

[kayanne]

My answer is that I do not have any infallible authority, but that I try to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit as best I can.

That is very similar to what I have said in such conversations, but then they usually say something like "Well, isn't it clear to you that 'being led by the Holy Spirit' doesn't work very well, and that's why there are so many divisions in the church?----everyone is deciding for himself what the Holy Spirit is 'telling them.' "
And then they use scriptures that talk about how Jesus wants unity in His church to "show" that prot's are wrong for not being in the "one true church," and that we don't have any real authority for our beliefs. :confused:

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Well you can point out to them that their authority is a man and therefore fallible. They do not have an infallible authority either. Of course this will be upsetting in light of their beliefs so I wouldn't advise using it, but realize that we do not believe they have an infallible authority at all. Every man is fallible, the last one that wasn't was nailed to a cross, there had been none before and there are none come after.

[Bulldog]

As far as people go (if you wan't to limit God to a "person"), my only spiritual auothrity Is God(or The Trinity). No mere human mortal on earth can have infallibility.

[Bulldog]

Well you can point out to them that their authority is a man and therefore fallible. They do not have an infallible authority either. Of course this will be upsetting in light of their beliefs so I wouldn't advise using it, but realize that we do not believe they have an infallible authority at all. Every man is fallible, the last one that wasn't was nailed to a cross, there had been none before and there are none come after.

Yes, good point.

[WesleyJohn]

.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I agree, my definition of Sola Scriptura is probably wrong. I hold that the sciptures are the final authority, therfore, if my reason, logic, and experience disagree with scripture then it is scripture that is correct.

[WesleyJohn]

.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Well as I study Greek and Hebrew as well as the many commentaries on scripture I have to think that the conclusions I come to are led by the Holy Spirit. I rarely have a situation where I feel the need to set aside reason and experience and so far I have been glad I have done that when I felt led to do so. It is for this reason that I hold my belief, it has been tried and tested and founf in myself to be accurate. I have a lenghty study process that I go through when studying scripture and a large part of it is the prayer beforehand. I don't see tradition as having that much a role in my spiritual life but I do read commentaries and apologetics in order to keep context.

[Bulldog]

however, if your reason, experience and church tradition all disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, then what? Is it possible that your interpretation of those scriptures is incorrect?

It's possible, but I think that flesh99 made the statement under the assumption that it was the correct translation.

[WesleyJohn]

.

[II Paradox II]

Hi! This is my very first post here. :wave: I have truly been enjoying reading through various posts here, as I have been on a "personal mission" for the past few months to learn more about others' beliefs.
Are you the same kayanne from Steve Ray's forum? If so, I admire your courage to post there on what can be quite a tough forum. They don't pull any punches and the sheer number of people posting can be intimidating. I post there occasionally but I usually don't like to do to much because it's a little out of balance for my tastes...

One question I am often asked when talking with Catholics is "Who is your authority on matters of faith?" I thought the obvious and sufficient answer was "the Bible." Catholics are quick to point out that the Bible is not able to interpret itself, (hence the numerous various protestant denominations and opinions of particular verses), whereas they believe that their church (including Sacred Tradition, catechism, and Pope) are their authority regarding interpreting the Bible. They claim that "my interpretation" is not authoritative (I guess I would have to agree, since I am not infallible), so they ask again, "Who is your authority?"
a few responses to the meat of your question:

1) This issue is a big one. However, I would be careful to make sure everyone is playing fair here. For instance, people will often claim the scriptures are not clear because words can be read in many different senses. However, this sort of skepticism about language should not be admitted without applying it consistently. If one cannot understand Jesus' words then why should the mere *words* of a bishop or priest be any easier to understand? If anything, a thourough study of church history reveals just how difficult it is to even interpret tradition correctly or univocally. Just so you know, I'm not saying there is no merit to their objection, but that often skepticism is used as a rhetorical tool by people who really don't understand, or care about, it's implications for their own position. There is a lot more to say about this, but I'll hold off unless you wish to hear more.

2) In some ways, their position has merit. It is a flaw of modern protestantism that it despises our history of interpretation through the ages. We have a tendency to reject tradition of any sort in favor of our own modern "feel" for a passage. This is certainly wrong. There is great value in the interpretive tradition of church through the ages and it shouldn't be ignored, even if we don't agree with it.

3) The history of the relation of tradition and scripture is far more complicated and nuanced than most of your interactions on these boards can indicate. The patristic attitude towards the scriptures and tradition was not monolithic, nor was it static over time. It changed and reflected elements common to both Roman Catholic and Protestant thought. To be honest, if you are interested, you should take the time to study the issue in more depth. If you'd like to study more, I'd suggest reading "Not by Scripture Alone" by Robert Sungenis and "Holy scripture, ground and pillar of our faith" by David King and William Webster. They are both good introductory level works dealing with this issue from the Roman Catholic and Protestant sides, respectively. They both contain bibliographies of a number of works that they rely on if you would like to read further.

ken

[JVAC]

As a Lutheran, the first Authority is that of the Pastor and the Church Council, then it proceeds up to the Bishop and Synod Council, after that it goes all the way up to the Presiding Bishop and National Council comprised of Bishops from all synods in the Nation. There is no Global Authority, however. There is the Lutheran World Federation (LCMS and WELS don't subscribe) and that is all the world wide Lutheran Churches federated together in a united Communion, it doesn't have any real power in decisions.

So to answer your question, utlimate Ecclesiastical power is in the Presiding Bishop and the National Council of Bishops, who are directed by the Word.

[Bulldog]

Ok...let me try to make my point a little more concrete...

flesh99 is using REASON (his knowledge of greek & hebrew), EXPERIENCE (the leading of the Holy Spirit (and I would imagine the revelation of God's presence during his day-to-day life), and TRADITION (the larger community of faith - in this case represented by his commentaries).

All aspects of this are playing together to lead flesh99 to what he understands to be the correct interpretation of God's Word.

If my experience directly contradicts with how I understand God's Word, then I have to work through that issue until they are reconciled--either I misunderstood the Spirit's leading and the experience God gave me, or I misunderstood the Word. If my understanding of greek (which is still quite limited) seems to contradict my understanding of God's Word, then I keep working until they are reconciled. If my quick reading of God's Word isn't in line with the best of Church Tradition and Christian Scholarship, then I had better be sure that I haven't mis-interpreted that Word and find myself teaching heresies.

And so, I would suggest that we all have other elements that help us interpret God's Word...things that help us understand if a particular passage is literal or figurative...dialogues with other scholars who help us know that our interpretation is within orthodox Christianity.

I only think that when we say to someone, "Sola Scriptura" we need to explain that we don't simply mean that the Bible speaks for itself and that it is our only authority. Yes, it may be our final authority...but God has given us other tools to experience His truth, and which help us understand His Word more fully.

Our dialogue with our Catholic brethren may be more successful if we are intentionally more honest about the various things that have authority for us, and help us understand God's Word.

That's where I was going with all that...I hope it made a little bit of sense! ;)

Grace and Peace,

WJ

OK, i see know. :)

[kayanne]

Are you the same kayanne from Steve Ray's forum?
Probably! There aren't too many kayanne's around. ;) But I don't actually recognize the name Steve Ray. I've been reading and posting on bibleforum and defenders of the catholic faith. Someone there recommended this site for answers about catholicism.



1) This issue is a big one. ..... If one cannot understand Jesus' words then why should the mere *words* of a bishop or priest be any easier to understand? If anything, a thourough study of church history reveals just how difficult it is to even interpret tradition correctly or univocally. .... There is a lot more to say about this, but I'll hold off unless you wish to hear more.

Excellent point about *words.* And absolutely yes I'd like to hear more. Thanks for your insightful response.

[seebs]

That is very similar to what I have said in such conversations, but then they usually say something like "Well, isn't it clear to you that 'being led by the Holy Spirit' doesn't work very well, and that's why there are so many divisions in the church?----everyone is deciding for himself what the Holy Spirit is 'telling them.' "

It seems to me we get divisions because people decide that they, or someone they know, must be "authority". When the authorities disagree, we have a division. When we recognize that we are not authorities, there is no division.

And then they use scriptures that talk about how Jesus wants unity in His church to "show" that prot's are wrong for not being in the "one true church," and that we don't have any real authority for our beliefs. :confused:

Well, the thing is, I think most Protestants do actually have rather a lot of authority going on, and I think this is a source of a great deal of trouble; where there is authority, there tends to be a resistance to thinking seriously about the possibility that the authority is wrong.

[Polycarp1]

Allow me to play with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (to which I subscribe, for reasons I'll get into in this post) for a moment.

1. Sola Scriptura does not say that the Bible is one's only authority, but that the Bible is one's foundational authority. It is the foundation on which the other elements build. Reason alone can conclude nothing without some data on which to build. Being human and thus not omniscient, experience is limited by what we alone have experienced. And in the fractured state of the church, tradition may lead one in dozens of directions, each one of which is claimed by its adherents to be the right way.

2. But Scripture must be rightly divided, that is, read in the proper way, in context and with a clear understanding of its unity of purpose. The ultimate reductio ad absurdam of this is a legitimate Biblical citation an atheist friend once playfully gave me in our friendly discussions: "There is no God." (Psalms 14:1b) In context, of course, that is what "the fool says in his heart" -- but it illustrates the problem with prooftexting out of context quite amply! :)

3. How can we "rightly divide Scripture" -- that is, read it with a clear understanding of its meaning in context and of its unity of purpose? This is where the other three elements of the quadrilateral come into play. No tradition can contradict Scripture, but it may well amplify and build on it. Reason enables us to put the pieces together in a coherent structure that makes sense. And experience shows us what the resulting doctrines induce in human behavior. Again, looking at a basic example, the Bible is quite clear that (a) there is but one God worthy of the name; (b) Jesus Christ referred to that God as "Father"; (c) Jesus Christ is Himself God and Lord; (b) the Holy Spirit is God working within our inmost selves, and yet is Someone sent by the Father at the request of the Son. The way in which the Church found these apparently paradoxical concepts to work together is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

4. All three of the other elements will guard against the abuse of Sola Scriptura -- because they will demonstrate the unfortunate results of founding erroneous doctrine on personal interpretation of Scripture. (And there's plenty of evidence available, even in these forums, of how one can go haring off believing completely wrongheadedly by taking what one sees as "the plain meaning of Scripture" in a manner not validated by context, tradition, reason, and experience.

[WesleyJohn]

.

[kayanne]

It seems to me we get divisions because people decide that they, or someone they know, must be "authority". When the authorities disagree, we have a division. When we recognize that we are not authorities, there is no division.



Well, the thing is, I think most Protestants do actually have rather a lot of authority going on, and I think this is a source of a great deal of trouble; where there is authority, there tends to be a resistance to thinking seriously about the possibility that the authority is wrong.

These are interesting statements. Could you elaborate a bit, particularly how these statements relate to various contradicting doctrines (you know all the biggies, OSAS, essentiality of baptism, tongues, communion every gathering or only occassionally, etc etc etc). I am trying to make sense of the whole concept of how Christians who are using ONE Bible (basically--don't want to debate the apocrypha here) and being led by ONE Holy Spirit can end up with so many different opinions. THAT is one of the "biggies" that cath's say is wrong with protestantism.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

I am trying to make sense of the whole concept of how Christians who are using ONE Bible (basically--don't want to debate the apocrypha here) and being led by ONE Holy Spirit can end up with so many different opinions. THAT is one of the "biggies" that cath's say is wrong with protestantism.

Before I begin, let me say hi to everyone. This is my first post on this forum.

I can certainly concur with what Kayanne says. One day my Catholic fencing instructor and I had a brief 'discussion' on religion and he pointed out the problem that Protestants have so many opinions and doctrines. His argument was that the Catholic faith is rooted in tradition and therefore must hold the truth. Whether I believe the latter statement or not does not change the fact that he does have a point in that the there are so many denominations within the Protestant faith. I too am searching for the truth.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

I do have a few thoughts on why there are so many different doctrines these days. Forgive me for not having my Bible in front of me to quote scripture.

I do recall somewhere in the NT that towards the end times there will be numerous false doctrines being spread. The Bible also gives us provisions as to how to discern false doctrines from true doctrines. This being that you will know them by the fruit of their works. Furthermore, we must analyze these doctrines and reference the scripture in which the doctrines are based upon to see if they hold up to scripture. This can only be done with spiritual illumination, which only God can give us.

I am sure that someone much wiser than myself can articulate this better. My knowledge of the Bible is no doubt quite limited. May we all pray that God will give us the wisdom to discern these things.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

The only real doctrines that we need to debate and work out are:

1. Baptism based salvation
2. Works based salvation

The rest is academic to be quite frank. As long as we hold to Sola Gratia, Sola fide then we agree on the only real important argument. The debates on everything else are really un-necessary for unity. The point is to bring people to Christ and so the only points that need to be deabted are the points involved in salvation. The other debates are fun to be sure and I avidly participate, but the requirements for salavation are the real dividing lines in my humble opinion. Some people may make other points a much bigger deal but in reality all that matters is a person's salvaltion and not their thoughts on Revelation, speaking in tongues, healing, etc, et al.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Flesh99,

Are you suggesting that there are only these two means of salvation possible? What about salvation through grace? How do we get this grace? Forgive me for sounding stupid, but I am trying to understand where your argument is coming from?

[seebs]

These are interesting statements. Could you elaborate a bit, particularly how these statements relate to various contradicting doctrines (you know all the biggies, OSAS, essentiality of baptism, tongues, communion every gathering or only occassionally, etc etc etc). I am trying to make sense of the whole concept of how Christians who are using ONE Bible (basically--don't want to debate the apocrypha here) and being led by ONE Holy Spirit can end up with so many different opinions. THAT is one of the "biggies" that cath's say is wrong with protestantism.

I went on about this at some length in a recent thread.

The fact is, we really don't know a lot of these things. We have a lot of information, but then we try to come up with theories to tie it all together. The problem is that people tend to then assume that, if the original information was infallible, so are all the inferences.

The Catholics have selected answers to these questions, and asserted that the answers are infallible. Most Protestants pick answers, and assert that their answers are infallible; this is, I agree, clearly an error. The correct position to adopt is that we have interesting theories, but don't know everything yet. Consider Paul's "through a glass, darkly".

The answer I would generally offer is that most of these positions appear to be consistent with what we do have support for, but are in the end speculative. It seems likely that our positions on these issues are not salvific, so why should God waste time correcting us about things that don't matter, when most of us presumably still need correction on things that do?

Assume for the sake of argument that OSAS turns out to be the "true" position. Imagine that you have a coworker who believes OSNAS, and who is also a real jerk.

Which of these errors would you think is more important for God to lead him out of? It seems to me that one of them is idle speculation, and one has concreete effects on those around him.

[raptor13]

Assume for the sake of argument that OSAS turns out to be the "true" position. Imagine that you have a coworker who believes OSNAS, and who is also a real jerk.

Which of these errors would you think is more important for God to lead him out of? It seems to me that one of them is idle speculation, and one has concreete effects on those around him.

good point.

[kayanne]

The only real doctrines that we need to debate and work out are:

1. Baptism based salvation
2. Works based salvation

The rest is academic to be quite frank. .... The point is to bring people to Christ and so the only points that need to be deabted are the points involved in salvation. The other debates are fun to be sure and I avidly participate, but the requirements for salavation are the real dividing lines in my humble opinion. ....

Yes, I definitely agree that, in the *eternal* scope of things, only doctrines related to exactly what is required for salvation are truly important. In fact, in my previous post I had typed something to that affect, but in an effort to keep it short, I took it out.

So, to tie this in with my original question about authority, regarding *how to be saved* who is your authority?

If it all comes down to *my interpretation* is faith only (genuine saving faith, which by my definition will result in a changed life); and *your interpretation* is faith plus baptism (because that's how you read Acts 2:38)---then we each make ourselves and our personal interpretation to be our final authority. No wonder the catholics think that their church is superior---they believe their doctrine on salvation (and everything else) was passed on straight from Jesus to Peter through the entire succession of church leaders, and Jesus' original intent has been preserved. Two conflicting protestants cannot both say that and both be right.

[InquisitorKind]

I am trying to make sense of the whole concept of how Christians who are using ONE Bible (basically--don't want to debate the apocrypha here) and being led by ONE Holy Spirit can end up with so many different opinions. THAT is one of the "biggies" that cath's say is wrong with protestantism.
How do the Scriptures define Biblical unity? Catholics often complain about Protestants not holding up a definition of unity that isn't defined in the Scriptures (compare verses like Luke 9:49-50 and 1 Corinthians 11:18 to the Catholic definition of unity).

I recommend the following two articles on the subject. They touch on these issues and point out some of the logical fallacies that are being used when Catholics point out this "biggie":

http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm

http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm

~Matt

[La Bonita Zorilla]

John Wesley (an Anglican Priest who founded classic methodism) spoke often of his 'quadrilateral' which was how he interpreted and discerned truth. At each point of the quadrilateral was one of the following: scripture, reason, tradition, and experience.
Thanks, WJ- as an adult who came to Methodism I appreciate this, though I myself would not weigh all four quarters equally. IMO and that of most liberal Christians reason and experience far supercede scripture and tradition.

As a church member I voluntarily submit to the authority of the pastor and church officials regarding church matters but nothing else. However I and every other member of every church has the absolute and complete right to withdraw that submission at any time for any reason. In general, mortals do not have any authority whatsoever over other believers except by their voluntary consent, which they should be reluctant to give except on a limited basis.

[WesleyJohn]

.