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]

...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." ..

And if you interpret that to means something else than what is written, then you make the writing meaningless, you could as well throw the book away and just make up your own.

You've swung from one extreme to the other here. As the article in post #18 points out, reading is not just passively accepting information, nor is it just making up whatever you want. Reading always requires interpreting the text responsibly. But that's the point: it always requires interpretation.

If you naively think you aren't interpreting the Bible when you read it, I'm afraid you are simply reading your own assumptions and preconceptions into the text without realizing it.

[historia]

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.

[Bible_Student]

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.

What you're suggesting is, in fact, completely contrary to what the Bible teaches regarding this issue: the Bible is not subject to any private interpretation.

[JehovahsWitness]

However, the judge is the official interpreter of the law. Her interpretation of the driving laws has authority in a way that mine and yours and everyone else's doesn't. The ultimate authority, then, in this analogy is the judge and her interpretation. Agreed?

Agreed

Yes, that's what I am saying. If there are any consequences from misinterpretation of the bible, that is (in my opinion) in God's hands. The bible contains absolute religious truth and our mission as Christians is simply to sincerely do our best to understand and apply it. It will not be done perfectly but it will I believe be done to His satisfaction in His due time.

[APAK]

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?

I believe what is dearly missing in the discussion thus far, are 3 essential elements that still makes scripture the final authority and the determination of one's faith and its practice. I've been reading posts where the inspiration of scripture is only considered as common lip service.

1.The context of the scripture under study is King: the local and outer context of scripture must be understood first, before making any determination of it's meaning. And just cherry-picking single verses that is all to common, and expecting to get a complete understanding of it and its surrounding context is born out out of laziness, ignorance or to feed one's belief model already set in stone.

2. Translator errors, whether intentional or not must be understood or known and seriously considered to the best of one's knowledge before making any determination of meaning.

3. The guidance and inspiration of the Spirit of God within one's heart and mind as we prepare and examine scripture is essential in uncovering the sometimes not too obvious meanings in scripture.

[Ross]

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.

That's like saying the interpreter is inspired of God, not the words that were written by the Almighty. This is dangerous. Like saying Catholicism or the Pope is God. With Gods authority or more authority than Gods Word.

I completely disagree with you.

[Ross]

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.

That's like saying the interpreter is inspired of God, not the words that were written by the Almighty. This is dangerous. Like saying Catholicism or the Pope is God. With Gods authority or more authority than Gods Word.

I completely disagree with you.

Please forgive me for my own analogy; but this line of argumentation somewhat reminds me of a gay man attempting to justify his sub Christian gay stature by claiming the Bible does not condemn the practice because of possible interpretations of clearly written text.

[Wrangler]

The Bible is just a book. All religions have a book.

Our ultimate authority is that we worship the living God. He inspired the writing of the Bible by REVEALING himself to prophets.

[1213]

...But that's the point: it always requires interpretation.
...

Sorry, I still don't see why it requires interpretation. Why you can't read Bible as it is, without giving own meanings to the text?

[Difflugia]

Sorry, I still don't see why it requires interpretation. Why you can't read Bible as it is, without giving own meanings to the text?

Reread this comment of yours and tell us that isn't "giving own meanings to the text."

Was Judas Really That Bad?