What is the Ultimate Authority in Matters of Faith
Quote:
Bottom line is that Christians should submit to the leadership of their local church in so far as they are submitted to the word of God. That is why there should be a plurality of godly elders and not one sole “leader of the church.” One man can be easier led astray than a group of men. Once the elders begin to stray from the authority of the word of God, then it is up to the church body to rebuke their elders. It’s as simple as this: The word of God is inerrant and infallible. God’s word does not lie, nor when rightly understood does it lead astray. Men can, and often do, err. We make mistakes; we are neither inerrant nor infallible. Which would you rather have to be the rule for Christian living, fallible men or the infallible word of God? The choice is quite simple.
Comment:
Inerrant and infallible are not terribly helpful terms, when considering the scriptures. The “doctrinal” arguments surrounding these terms are only a couple of hundred years old. They, probably, are more bound to the perceived threat of the Enlightenment and Modernism, than anything truly theological.
That said, the Bible is the ultimate authority in matters of faith, but not in a vacuum. It contains the revelation of God throughout history. The Bible is a record of God’s desire to be in a relationship with all facets of the created order, and the ups and downs in the unfolding process. The Bible communicates the love of God, most fully expressed, in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
It is the purview of the Church to interpret the scriptures. Often, the meaning of a text is quite clear. Sometimes, the truth within a passage is more obscure. Communities of faith, throughout history, have sought God through engagement with the scriptures. The Bible portrays witnesses that serve as examples of faithfulness and dedication to God. We see how the first followers of Jesus sought to proceed, in light of their experience and transformation, by virtue of his presence in their lives.
The scriptures provide a picture of the Christian life. We use the biblical witness to shape ours. Discussions of rules seem to be more about existential reassurance, to me. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a proper Christian person. There are boundaries, but isn’t the Christian enterprise about putting your life and hope in the hands of the living God?
I love the Bible, but it is not to be used as an infallible, inerrant rule. The Bible points beyond itself to the “real” ultimate authority, the living God.
Quote:
Bottom line is that Christians should submit to the leadership of their local church in so far as they are submitted to the word of God. That is why there should be a plurality of godly elders and not one sole “leader of the church.” One man can be easier led astray than a group of men. Once the elders begin to stray from the authority of the word of God, then it is up to the church body to rebuke their elders. It’s as simple as this: The word of God is inerrant and infallible. God’s word does not lie, nor when rightly understood does it lead astray. Men can, and often do, err. We make mistakes; we are neither inerrant nor infallible. Which would you rather have to be the rule for Christian living, fallible men or the infallible word of God? The choice is quite simple.
Comment:
Inerrant and infallible are not terribly helpful terms, when considering the scriptures. The “doctrinal” arguments surrounding these terms are only a couple of hundred years old. They, probably, are more bound to the perceived threat of the Enlightenment and Modernism, than anything truly theological.
That said, the Bible is the ultimate authority in matters of faith, but not in a vacuum. It contains the revelation of God throughout history. The Bible is a record of God’s desire to be in a relationship with all facets of the created order, and the ups and downs in the unfolding process. The Bible communicates the love of God, most fully expressed, in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
It is the purview of the Church to interpret the scriptures. Often, the meaning of a text is quite clear. Sometimes, the truth within a passage is more obscure. Communities of faith, throughout history, have sought God through engagement with the scriptures. The Bible portrays witnesses that serve as examples of faithfulness and dedication to God. We see how the first followers of Jesus sought to proceed, in light of their experience and transformation, by virtue of his presence in their lives.
The scriptures provide a picture of the Christian life. We use the biblical witness to shape ours. Discussions of rules seem to be more about existential reassurance, to me. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a proper Christian person. There are boundaries, but isn’t the Christian enterprise about putting your life and hope in the hands of the living God?
I love the Bible, but it is not to be used as an infallible, inerrant rule. The Bible points beyond itself to the “real” ultimate authority, the living God.
6 comments:
So, did you post your comment on the original site. I didn't see it. It's a good response in any case.
CP
No, CP, I didn't comment there. I didn't think I would win friends or influence anyone.
As the author of the original post, I'm surprised you didn't comment there. Personally, I don't think we're that far apart. The context of the original post was a question posed to me as to what constitutes the authority for believers.
Of course God is the ultimate authority, but how do we know the mind of God? Through his written word. This is where God "speaks" to us.
I don't love the Bible because it is the perfect "rule book." I love it because it helps me to know my God better.
Carl,
Thx for tracking me down and your comments. Your post started me thinking and I was moved to post myself. Since we are here, what do infallible and inerrant mean in your view?
Chris,
Hmmm...I realize that these terms are relatively "new" on the doctrinal scene. To me they mean two things:
1. Infallible: The word of God is true in what it aserts. It doesn't touch every subject under the su, but when it does speak on something, it speaks truly and without error.
2. Inerrant: The word of God is true in where it leads. When properly interpreted and understood, the word of God will always lead to the best, most righteous outcome.
A couple of caveats. One, while the Bible speaks truly on every subject it touches upon, it does not condone everything written in its pages. For example, while it speaks truly about the life of King Saul, the Bible does not hold up King Saul as an example to be emulated.
The second caveat, is that there are a handful of "disputed" doctrines (e.g., modes of baptism, the timing of Christ's return, the role of women in church leadership, etc.). Opponents of inerrancy might look at these disputes and claim inerrancy is untenable. That's why I included the comment about "properly interpreted." I believe when it comes to the essentials of faith, there is a great consensus among Christians of all denominations. Virtually all disputed doctrines fall into what I would call "non-essentials" (i.e., doctrines that aren't essential to salvation).
My views on infallibility and inerrancy are based on the character of God himself. God being perfect would make sure his word reflected his character.
Carl,
I appreciate your explication. You are correct in your statement that we are not far apart. You have a generosity built into you terms of inerrant and infallible that I have not encountered before. Those terms, in my experience, imply a rigidity, you seem to avoid.
I might deal with the contested issues you mention in a slightly different way. I don't see the scriptural prohibitions as errors per se either, but as time-bound articulations of parameters. The interpretive piece is separating a thing indifferent from the essential, and understanding its character.
The other difficult task for interpreters is reconciling scriptural texts against one another. We do it with the Old and New Testaments. In light of the New Covenant, the dietary laws do not apply to followers of Jesus. Yet, it is harder to reconcile Paul with Paul. "In Christ there is no Jew, no Greek, no slave or free, no male or female..." In other places, Paul seems very keen on distinctions.
So the task is to bring the head and the heart into play. Of necessity, we interpret. Most of those I have encountered, using the terms infallible and inerrant, tend to posit a "the Bible says it, I believe it" mindset. Frankly, I agree the truth is there, but grasping the truth is often not so easy.
Thx.
Post a Comment