The notion of the authority of scripture
Hello all:
In the last couple of days, I’ve read enough sentences that say something like “xxx rejects the authority of the scriptures,” that I’m ready to puke. This phrase has bothered me for a long time, but I have tired of reading and hearing it, so now I shall start my diatribe against it.
This phrase comes out of the mouths of many in Churches of Christ. Not only that, though, this phrase also comes out of the mouths of many others that would be considered “evangelical” about churches that are more liberal than they are, or with whom they disagree.
If you read most statements of faith and creedal statements by most fundamentalist or evangelical groups today, they usually include a phrase that mentions that they firmly uphold and affirm the authority of scripture.
The groups that our church often criticizes for rejecting the authority of the scripture love to talk about how much authority the scriptures have. So why do we say that they reject that authority?
It is because they don’t reject the authority of the scripture, but instead they reject our preconceived ideas and beliefs about scripture. They reject, or rather, don’t even recognize our idea that there is a “New Testament Pattern” of how to conduct a worship service. They reject the Command, Example and Necessary Inference hermeneutic (which stems from the idea of a pattern to look for and follow). They reject the notion that the bible must specifically authorize something in English for it to be permissible in a worship service. They reject various interpretations of scripture that Churches of Christ typically affirm, and when they do this, we then say they are rejecting the authority of scripture altogether. It is implied that they don’t respect God. It is implied that they are apostate for not agreeing with our notions about scripture.
We then use these items in our unwritten creed to keep these people at arms length or further so they don’t effect “doctrinal purity.”
When we do this, we, in fact, are guilty of rejecting the authority of scripture. We instead exalt the authority of our logical and common sense above that of the scripture. We impose our beliefs on the text instead of reading anew what the text actually says and means.
One of our taglines states: “It says what it means, and it means what it says.” Its time that we respect that.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:13
Amen brother!
People who claim others reject the authority of scripture seem to be treating the scriptures like a recipe. You get two cups of this, a cup of that, heat the oven this hot, etc. Not many things in scripture are spelled out like that…certainly not the things we usually quarrel about. When we claim that the scriptures plainly state X, when in fact we merely inferred X, we are disrespecting scripture. We are placing our interpretive skills on the same level as divine inspiration.
March 3rd, 2007 at 20:30
Yes I would agree authority of scripture is overdone and even some of our apologetics. The discovery of Jesus coffin and perhaps burial of his bones comes from the same logic and research. Too debunk such claims we end up shooting ourselves in the foot on other type discoveries we deem more to are liking.
Have we ever cornered truth?
Do we need elders and deacons today? And do we have gifts of the supernatural ability? The idea we say YES and NO to the questions means we have a pick and choose hermeneutic. Same as it is with authority! We choose what is important, and often, that has little to do with Christ.
March 4th, 2007 at 5:01
“We instead exalt the authority of our logical and common sense above that of the scripture.”
I’d suggest a quick study of how Jesus and the early churches used Scripture. Might be illuminating.
March 4th, 2007 at 14:11
Well we know the apostles and the gentile writers misquoted scripture! Matt 27:9-10 and Mark 1:2-3 are just some of them,and Peter does it as well as Paul.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:44
Actually… no.
I’m assuming you think the quotes were misattributed. However, there was a common practice among Jewish scholars and rabbis to make composite attributions, often of . You can see this in the OT, for example, in II Chronicles 36:21. Malachi and Ezra, for example, were conflated at times, as were Jeremiah and Zechariah (Zechariah often being said to have written with the spirit of Jeremiah). You can see Chajes’ “The Student’s Guide Through the Talmud” for more examples.
Your post does make a point, though. Most of those decrying “patternism” aren’t really anti-patternist. They just don’t like the traditional patterns drawn by churches of Christ. If they were truly anti-patternist, they’d attack the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture - and that certainly is denying the authority of Scripture. While some do (and logically it’s the inevitable next step on the path toward allowing female leadership and the like), most don’t go nearly that far. Yet.
March 6th, 2007 at 15:20
What about Jesus misquoting from Deuteronomy in Luke 4:8 The point being he added to the verse. If the scriptures have authority and if Jesus is the example of how to use them could we do what Jesus did?
Or is Luke( a gentile)mistaken on the actual words Jesus used?
March 7th, 2007 at 13:23
Enjoying your thoughts and glad your posting. Please do it more often!
March 7th, 2007 at 14:50
In Luke 4:8, Jesus is not directly quoting, but alluding to Deuteronomy 6:13. The technical term is “citation.”
We could keep playing pitch-and-catch, with you attempting to deny the inspiration of the Bible and me refuting your points… or you can just get to your actual point. Your call, boss.
March 8th, 2007 at 22:24
I don’t deny inspiration( Spirit motivated writing) of the scriptures. I do believe it is debatable if Jewish exegesis or copyist style brings one to a understanding of the authority of scripture.
How can we rely on the very same people Jesus condemned,Matt 11:25 “Thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You hid these things from the wise and from those who have much learning. You have shown them to little children.
Here a easy question did Jesus know everything? The answer is no, he did not and it is questionnable whether he still does.
Example Jesus does not know when the End of time will be. So is it possible he misquoted?
Does that make him unequal in the trinity? Again no.
So there are a few typos in the Bible and a few textual errors so what! Is it possible Jesus followed his Jewish heritage instead of misquoting sure! These are only some of the possibilities. The fact is we are dealing with God as a man and anything goes.
March 9th, 2007 at 16:52
“How can we rely on the very same people Jesus condemned”
Not sure if you mean the inspired writers or scholars or someone else here. Please clarify.
If you mean the apostles, well, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things (John 14:26, fulfilled in Acts 2) and Peter said they (meaning he and the audience he was writing to) had received everything they needed for life and godliness (II Peter 1:3). Either they’re right or they’re wrong. If they’re wrong (or there really are errors in the original Bible, indicating it’s not from God), then we might as well toss away our Bible and forget this Jesus guy, because He’s a fraud and the only way we have today to know about Him is as well.
Back to the original question: How did Jesus use the Bible? It’s a pretty good indication of how we should.
March 9th, 2007 at 19:50
Yes back to the question. Interesing enough one of the things that I find is that using Old Testament meant that the original writing had duel meanings in some places. Cloaked would be the best way to describe it.
What Jesus and apostle and leaders had to do is look for this duelism and figure out how it applied to them. Now, was it human intellect or divine intervention I’m torn.
Clearly the reason we have the Holy Spirit is to get our minds focused on what it would take to live the Christian life and to have salvation. These things must be in place far before we dive into any text.
There is a another thing too Jesus said let this cup pass from me. To me this is God perhaps in a moment of weakness hoping for another way out. Of course God the father does not answer this prayer.
Jesus as a person had limitations it is these limitations that I wonder if they got in the way of his personal studies and understanding of his own ministry.
Jesus also said “its not my time” however his mother thought other wise. I say this to apply this for today it isn’t though we sit around and get CENI and WWJD and and our other 9 hermeneutics and figure out Gods will.
What gives us strong purpose in life gives us the drive to overcome are weaknesses, pain, and to enjoy our Christian walk. It is at those points of life the word God gives sense of discover and authority.
March 10th, 2007 at 13:26
Something crossed my mind a bit after i read this and i wanted to come back to it:
Suppose someone you knew (”Jones”) believed that Jesus was a being that God created. Jones believed that Jesus was *not* qualitatively the same as God the Father. And so you said of your friend Jones that he rejects the deity of Christ. Jones caught wind of this and was very upset–”What do you mean i reject the deity of Christ?! i never said any such thing! Look,” says Jones, “right here in my church’s creed it says we believe in the deity of Christ.” And you say, “yeah, but you told me just the other day that you think that Christ is a created being and that He is not qualitatively the same as God the Father.” Jones says, “Yes, that’s true, we don’t believe that Christ is equal to the Father at all. But we do believe that the Father wants us to *treat* Christ as a god-life figure; God wants us to *deify* Christ in the way we approach Him. So because of that, we do believe in the deity of Christ.”
Now, provided that hypothetical situation, would you find it inaccurate to continue to say that Jones does, in fact, reject the deity of Christ? If it were me, i realize that Jones doesn’t think that he rejects the deity of Christ, and i realize that he subscribes to a creed which claims for itself that it doesn’t reject the deity of Christ. But those two in themselves don’t imply that Jones *actually* accepts the deity of Christ since he clearly assigns the term “deity of Christ” a completely different denotation than i do or the Bible does. Based on that, i don’t see how it would be unfair of me (nor inconsistent with my own position) to still maintain that Jones does, in fact, reject the deity of Christ.
Now, if i can do that, then why couldn’t we create the same scenario regarding the authority of scripture where two parties assign different denotations to the term?
March 10th, 2007 at 17:17
“There is a another thing too Jesus said let this cup pass from me. To me this is God perhaps in a moment of weakness hoping for another way out. Of course God the father does not answer this prayer.”
Leaving out the phrases “if possible” and “yet not as I will, but as You will” changes the quote’s meaning. And the Father does answer it… He just says no.
But it’s the latter phrase you excluded that is really key to the Christian. We need to do God’s will and in order to do it, we must understand it. None of us can know what’s pleasing to God without some sort of revelation. That revelation is Scripture. If Jesus is our example in all things, we better use hermeneutics similar to His.
How did Jesus use Scripture? He appealed to factual statements and commands of divine origin (Matthew 4:1-11, John 14:15). He appealed to examples (Matthew 12:1-5). He noted necessary implications of Scripture (Matthew 22:23-32).
And was He ever picky! Look at that last verse: to prove something as important as the eternality of the soul, he notes the tense of a verb in one passage! And strict? People often quote Matthew 23:23-24 to argue against strictness, but they need to look again. “…These are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.” The Pharisees’ problem wasn’t strictness in straining the gnat or tithing their table spices. The problem was they swallowed the camel or missed the core principles of the Law. Their problem was that they weren’t strict enough, according to Jesus (Matthew 5:20)!
So, how did Jesus use Scripture? Well, pretty much like churches of Christ traditionally have.
March 10th, 2007 at 18:01
I’ve been shown to many times to be right theoretically is not as comforting as being wrong with a friend in faith. Do we need to indoctrinate or just mortally wound the relation with pride? And yes Jesus Christ is very important but what about the Holy Spirit?Who has a grasp on the nature and deity of the Holy Spirit especially in the light of what are Biblical footnotes say on 1 John 5:7. Is that a 16 century add in?
5 years ago I could not image letting a Jones scenario slip by without my letting my church of Christ understanding inundate the conversation. Now I think hey thats a good point beside doesn’t being a Son of God show the plausibility.
Same goes with Scriptural authority! What ever magic comes from the statement is only from those bold enough to enforce it. Who wants to debate how we ought to give to the church. Or whether we can have a kitchen in it. The word church doesn’t even exist in the scriptures oops another KJV conspiracy. Who wants to debate the 30 missing scriptures in the NIV. Who wants to figure out whether restoration is prophetic or just a man made doctrine. MDR anyone? And I thought we were autonomous and nondenominational two words I can’t even find in the Bible. So –what difference does it make if I embrace ecumenical denominational beliefs.
That is, with or without authority, we are all on shaky ground. There is more to life than just what is or is not on the written page. There is Spirit and grace 2 things that aid us in forgiveness in our doctrinal misunderstandings.
March 10th, 2007 at 18:46
I really don’t know what a church of Christ hermeneutic is? For some it might be the yellow book “Directions for the road ahead” and others a Dave Miller book. For others it just a pet peeve slant of the scriptures. And another a mix of academia with postmodernist view.