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]

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.

Perhaps we can start there. Is there anything in that analysis you think is wrong?

I think who might that "someone" be?

Indeed.

Some follow these steps of interpretation;

What if I decide to follow a different set of steps, and thus end up with a different interpretation? Who decides which steps are the correct ones?

But I would prefer Bible text interpreted/supported by Bible text, no or less man's contribution.

That's impossible, as all reading requires the reader's contribution (see post #18).

That would serve as Bible functions as an authority.

I don't disagree that the Bible can serve as "an authority," but can it be your "ultimate authority?"

[Bible_Student]

Since several people in the thread have slipped into this argument, let me note that I am not asking whether the Bible is "an authority," but whether it is your "ultimate authority."

Every Jehovah's Witness would agree. In other threads concerning the "inspiration" of the Bible and its impact on our interpretation of its teachings, our stance on this matter is unequivocal.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Tcg]

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?

The doctrine of the Bible's supreme authority is known as Sola Scriptura, which means that the Bible alone is the final authority for life. However, this does not mean that there are no other authorities in life, such as parents, governors, and church leaders.
The Bible can be used to guide people in all areas of their lives, including how they approach work, family life, finances, and relationships with neighbors and to eternal life.

Jhn 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Jhn 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The problem here is that the author of John couldn't possibly be talking about the Bible. It had not yet been compiled. The book would of course be the gospel John. The claim would be limited to that small slice of what we would come to call the Bible.


Tcg

Yes, the "book" (biblion) referred by apostle John would have been "a written document", where Jesus' many other signs were also written.

G975 (Thayer)
βιβλίον
biblion
Thayer Definition:
1) a small book, a scroll, a written document
2) a sheet on which something has been written
2a) a bill of divorcement

First a question, why do you claim it was written by the apostle John?

Secondly, none of this addresses my point. The author of what we call gospel John was not referring to the Bible as a whole. He couldn't possibly have as it wasn't yet compiled.

historia can correct me if I'm wrong, but the subject addresses the whole Bible. Not sure if they include the deuterocanonical books or not, I would guess so. In any case, the subject is not limited to the one book (biblion) gospel John.


Tcg

Yes, the Gospel of John is traditionally attributed to John the Apostle, but many scholars now believe that he did not write it.
Traditional view, the Gospel of John is traditionally attributed to John the Apostle, who was a disciple of Jesus.
Early witnesses to this tradition include Justin Martyr, Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus.
Contemporary view, only a minority of contemporary scholars believe that John the Apostle wrote the gospel.
Most scholars conclude that he wrote none of the Johannine works.
The language of the Gospel and its theology suggest that the author may have lived later than John.
Other considerations, some have suggested that the author is an idealized literary figure, the ideal Christian disciple.
The prevailing belief is that John's name serves as a mere placeholder.

Yes, Apostle John not also been referring it to the Scriptures. It's possible that John the Apostle used a scribe, or amanuensis, when writing the Gospel of John. This is because scribes were common at the time and Paul also used a scribe to write his letters. Yes, before the compilation of the Bible.

Your assignment of the authorship to John the apostle shows that you have moved beyond "Sola Scriptura." You too are relying upon tradition as you admit here: "the Gospel of John is traditionally attributed to John the Apostle."


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

But, in practice, I can't just interpret the law as I see fit. If the police pull me over for driving 55 MPH in a 25 MPH zone, and I go before a judge to contest the ticket, arguing that my interpretation of the driving laws is that I can drive as fast as I want wherever I want, is the judge going to waive my ticket?

... in that case (and I know you like my analogies) God would be the judge. He would decide to what degree ignorance , motives ( a pregnant wife that's in labour and has started pushing)... or misunderstanding of the concept of law is applicable... and what according to his judgement should be the consequences.

But, if Mathison is correct here -- and I think his observations are undeniable -- that the Bible only functions as an authority when it is read and interpreted by someone, then would you not agree that who that "someone" is and the "input" they bring to the text is absolutely critical?

Well of course. How can any book, serve ANY purpose if it remains unread and/or misunderstood.

Okay, but doesn't that then mean that the reader is the ultimate authority?

Depends on what you mean by "the ultimate authority". If you by that you mean the deciding factor as to what each individual chooses to believe, then... yes. But if you mean that which is true, then no. Truth is absolute whether it is understood and believed or misunderstood (read: "misinterpreted") and disbelieved. I believe the bible is the ultimate source of religious truth and there is no coming to spiritual truth independent of it.

I don't know the work of Mathison but possibly the only difference between his, my and perhaps your own view, is that I believe in God ... and His active participation in the progressive revelation, comprehension and application of said biblical truths.






JW

[Capbook]

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.

Perhaps we can start there. Is there anything in that analysis you think is wrong?

I think who might that "someone" be?

Indeed.

Some follow these steps of interpretation;

What if I decide to follow a different set of steps, and thus end up with a different interpretation? Who decides which steps are the correct ones?

But I would prefer Bible text interpreted/supported by Bible text, no or less man's contribution.

That's impossible, as all reading requires the reader's contribution (see post #18).

That would serve as Bible functions as an authority.

I don't disagree that the Bible can serve as "an authority," but can it be your "ultimate authority?"

Yes, being a Christian, the Bible is my ultimate authority, the sole source of truth, and the final standard for faith and life, because I believe it is the divinely inspired word of God.

[Capbook]

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?

The doctrine of the Bible's supreme authority is known as Sola Scriptura, which means that the Bible alone is the final authority for life. However, this does not mean that there are no other authorities in life, such as parents, governors, and church leaders.
The Bible can be used to guide people in all areas of their lives, including how they approach work, family life, finances, and relationships with neighbors and to eternal life.

Jhn 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
Jhn 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The problem here is that the author of John couldn't possibly be talking about the Bible. It had not yet been compiled. The book would of course be the gospel John. The claim would be limited to that small slice of what we would come to call the Bible.


Tcg

Yes, the "book" (biblion) referred by apostle John would have been "a written document", where Jesus' many other signs were also written.

G975 (Thayer)
βιβλίον
biblion
Thayer Definition:
1) a small book, a scroll, a written document
2) a sheet on which something has been written
2a) a bill of divorcement

First a question, why do you claim it was written by the apostle John?

Secondly, none of this addresses my point. The author of what we call gospel John was not referring to the Bible as a whole. He couldn't possibly have as it wasn't yet compiled.

historia can correct me if I'm wrong, but the subject addresses the whole Bible. Not sure if they include the deuterocanonical books or not, I would guess so. In any case, the subject is not limited to the one book (biblion) gospel John.


Tcg

Yes, the Gospel of John is traditionally attributed to John the Apostle, but many scholars now believe that he did not write it.
Traditional view, the Gospel of John is traditionally attributed to John the Apostle, who was a disciple of Jesus.
Early witnesses to this tradition include Justin Martyr, Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus.
Contemporary view, only a minority of contemporary scholars believe that John the Apostle wrote the gospel.
Most scholars conclude that he wrote none of the Johannine works.
The language of the Gospel and its theology suggest that the author may have lived later than John.
Other considerations, some have suggested that the author is an idealized literary figure, the ideal Christian disciple.
The prevailing belief is that John's name serves as a mere placeholder.

Yes, Apostle John not also been referring it to the Scriptures. It's possible that John the Apostle used a scribe, or amanuensis, when writing the Gospel of John. This is because scribes were common at the time and Paul also used a scribe to write his letters. Yes, before the compilation of the Bible.

Your assignment of the authorship to John the apostle shows that you have moved beyond "Sola Scriptura." You too are relying upon tradition as you admit here: "the Gospel of John is traditionally attributed to John the Apostle."


Tcg

I just convey the wider view of its authorship. But to confine source to Bible text, the apostle John testified and wrote the gospel.(John 21:24)

[1213]

...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.

[Ross]

I think it is folly to deny that the Old Testament is the undeniable Word of God if one claims to be a Christian and a believer in God.

Indeed, and the question in the OP already assumes as much, as I begin with the assertion that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is inspired by God.

The question I'm asking in the OP, though, centers on Mathison's observations regarding the nature of texts in general, and Scripture in particular:

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.

Perhaps we can start there. Is there anything in that analysis you think is wrong?

I agree that even the translations of a Bible are interpretation unless there is ultimate loyalty dignity and faithfulness in the scribe or whatever he is today called; traits that defy almost all men.
This is why I base most of my Biblical assertions upon personal observations and considerations of interlinears rather than translations.

My view was expressed earlier:

God is my ultimate authority, coupled with my innate sense of right and wrong and good and bad.
I do not however seek God in todays churches.
I would rather discover him in the scriptures of the Bible, which if not quite perfect and have staggered and stumbled a little in the eons of time, stand out as a beacon of light compared to the evil of the history of organised religion.

So I guess I am my own interpreter

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; some middle man or church.

[historia]

Since several people in the thread have slipped into this argument, let me note that I am not asking whether the Bible is "an authority," but whether it is your "ultimate authority."

Every Jehovah's Witness would agree. In other threads concerning the "inspiration" of the Bible and its impact on our interpretation of its teachings, our stance on this matter is unequivocal.

What are your thoughts on this?

Sorry, I'm not sure what, exactly, you're saying every Jehovah's Witness would agree with. Perhaps you can clarify.

[historia]

But, in practice, I can't just interpret the law as I see fit. If the police pull me over for driving 55 MPH in a 25 MPH zone, and I go before a judge to contest the ticket, arguing that my interpretation of the driving laws is that I can drive as fast as I want wherever I want, is the judge going to waive my ticket?

... in that case (and I know you like my analogies)

I do, indeed, although I also always try to keep in mind that all analogies are, by their nature, imperfect. For example, the Bible is not particularly like a law code, but perhaps more on that later.

God would be the judge.

It seems to me that, in this analogy, God is actually the author of the law. Laws are written by the Legislature, not the Courts. The local magistrate who is hearing my case regarding my speeding ticket didn't write the driving laws, and doesn't know (in some absolute sense) what the author of the law intended.

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?

Depends on what you mean by "the ultimate authority". If you by that you mean the deciding factor as to what each individual chooses to believe, then... yes. But if you mean that which is true, then no.

I mean the latter.