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]

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 suspect pretty much everyone on this forum would say they follow those three essential elements -- or ones very much like them. And yet nearly every single thread here reveals well-meaning and fully-convinced believers disagreeing with each other on a whole host of theological issues both large and small.

This is, I think, not an accident, as differing interpretations are inevitable under sola scriptura. If people following your "essential elements" or Capbook's "steps" (see post #16) when reading the Bible all arrive at different beliefs, how, in practice, is the Bible functioning as the "final authority"?

[historia]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. It seems to me that other people in the thread are the ones arguing for what might be described as a "private interpretation" of the Bible, as they are suggesting that we just need to follow certain steps when reading the Bible, trying our best to understand what it says, and applying that to our lives. And yet they all arrive at differing beliefs and practices.

[APAK]

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 suspect pretty much everyone on this forum would say they follow those three essential elements -- or ones very much like them. And yet nearly every single thread here reveals well-meaning and fully-convinced believers disagreeing with each other on a whole host of theological issues both large and small.

This is, I think, not an accident, as differing interpretations are inevitable under sola scriptura. If people following your "essential elements" or Capbook's "steps" (see post #16) when reading the Bible all arrive at different beliefs, how, in practice, is the Bible functioning as the "final authority"?

Those essential things I wrote previously only sets the tone, and indicates much more that is wrong when one attempts to use scripture for any worthwhile spiritual experience.
When carnally driven men attempt to consider using scripture for their own works and then speak of what is the final authority, the Bible and/or some other devise, I see hypocrisy and even evil works afoot.

I can only vouch for myself here, not for a community. My experiences mean much to this conversation.

It's been an incredible journey since I left the RCC religion that I was raised in. And beside the RCC dogma and rituals and supplementals like the Catechisms, prayer books etc., the Protestants have similar although less extensive supplies of materials to fill-in with scripture as their final authority of the word of God.

And what still amazes me when I review all these materials, over again, I find where they deliberately courted a non-biblical doctrine(s) or major idea for folks to believe in, and deliberately mislead them. And the giant of then all, common to both is the belief model of the Trinity. I could write a book of their deliberate alterations, diversions from scripture for the sake of promoting their pet doctrines just spawned out of the Trinity model alone.

And I do not count these 'add-ons' as being any part of any final authority pf scripture at all. In fact it conceals the true intent, meaning and context of the word of God in favor of men's' work - it supersedes and supplants the holy writ in many places. And I will not have anything to do with this type of 'unholy' work generated over the last nearly-2000 years.

I guess this opener is more that you might have expected from me....it is a subject that I'm very much aware of, everyday in my spiritual walk.

Thanks for your interest is calling upon me...

[historia]

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.

That's a bit dramatic, my friend. Having an authoritative interpreter of Scripture doesn't make them God.

Let's go back to Mathison:

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?

[historia]

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

Okay, so in the analogy -- at least as I understand it -- the law represents the Bible, and the Legislature, as the author of the law, represents God.

Who, or what, then is the Court in this analogy? In the legal system the Courts function as the official interpreter of the law. Who is the official interpreter of the Bible?

The bible contains absolute religious truth and our mission as Christians is simply to sincerely do our best to understand and apply it.

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?

[historia]

I guess this opener is more that you might have expected from me.

I don't mind. But I was hoping you would directly answer the question I posed to you.

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"?

[Ross]

Let's go back to Mathison:

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.

Only the manuscripts have authority in my humble opinion, or the Bible translation if it has been done faithfully and without interpretation.

The only authority is Gods Word.

I do not recognize church authority or the self assumed authority of any man.

We can appeal to others that our assumptions are correct, but that is all. It is up to each individual to examine the truth

[APAK]

I guess this opener is more that you might have expected from me.

I don't mind. But I was hoping you would directly answer the question I posed to you.

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. Your always end up in a compromise...The bias of an array of personal opinions, that treat the word as a mental-level-only Book of learning for life, always creeps in and ruins the inspired and divine word of God. End then you either live with it, or leave. Folks tend to be persuaded by the majority or those that have the power over others. This is why and how we have seen over time, one, two or a few people revolt in their existing congregations and develop their own.

In reality, as an individual, the Spirit of God guides me to the correct meanings of the word under study and for my life, whether it takes the first time or the 100x to 'get it right.' And it functions as my authority of the truth.

[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.

[JehovahsWitness]

Okay, so in the analogy -- at least as I understand it -- the law represents the Bible, and the Legislature, as the author of the law, represents God.

Who, or what, then is the Court in this analogy? In the legal system the Courts function as the official interpreter of the law. Who is the official interpreter of the Bible?

God.

Whether he shares the official (read correct) interpretation with us is another matter...if he chooses not to then all we can do is read, reason, pray and try and be receptive when and to whom He does decide to eventually share.

In short we read and try to interpret scripture in the hope that the official interpreter (God) will reveal the correct understanding to us in due time.