The Impossibility of Scriptural Authority

[Ouroboros]

I suppose when a Judge in a Criminal Court incarcerates a person based on his/her own reading of the Law of the Land, it's just the Judge's interpretation and cultural view of how the law should be read...

First of all, the "judge" in a criminal court is the jury of peers. The judge only presides the trial and hand out the penalty.

When it comes to supreme court, however, then the judges interpret the law.

The law is both absolute and constantly under interpretation and trial itself.

We are not incapable of reading and understanding. This could go for pretty much any text, not just scripture.

Language changes. It changes a lot and fast. Not as fast anymore because of the written text and media in general is making language more "sticky" and less evolving. Anyway, words are vague. Words from thousands of years ago don't always mean what we think they do, also because we're not from the same culture and lived under the same conditions.

 

[Ouroboros]

Christianity never used the bible as the sole rule of faith, until Martin Luther that is. It was always Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority. Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition, thus Tradition is the keys to unlocking the true interpretation of the Bible. Where can we find Church Tradition? In the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

You're right, of course, but Windwalker is talking specifically about literalists. They've gained a lot of ground the past 100 years, and are very popular. I think the allure is that it seems so simple. Just read it and you know the truth, but it's a deception. You're presented by a preacher's/teachers's views and opinions, but presented as the "correct literal translation" of the text, and the audience never realizes that there are so many ways this could be interpreted differently. Then after they're hooked, anyone presenting any alternative are automatically rejected as "new agers" or "liberal christians" and such.

 

[Ouroboros]

So what is your point? Follow the Traditions of Jesus Christ, or follow the traditions of men in Protestantism, I'll pick Christ's. Why do we need Apostolic Tradition? Because all it is, is the correct interpretation of Scrpture that has been deposited into the Church by the Apostles.

Protestants believe wholeheartedly that they're the ones following Christ and the "correct" traditions from the early church before the Orthodox/Catholic took over. Many protestants believe the Catholic church is the heresy.

 

[Christ's Lamb]

What?



Do you have two heads or one? LOL

My point is letting tradition lead you is wrong not right.

Hebrews 10:25 means (because I can see it happening) tradition prevents people from being led to The Christ, to be gathered to him. One body. One flock. One faith.

I am not speaking of any old tradition, I am speaking of sacred Tradition that is from God. You are speaking of a tradition created by men. The traditions of men do indeed prevent men from being led to God fully. St. Paul tells us to hold fast to the traditions you have been taught, either by epistle (scripture) or by word of mouth (Apostolic Tradition) in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Examples of the Traditions of God compared to the traditions of men:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3)

Traditions of Men: "One is born again by excepting Jesus Into their heart as their personal Lord and Savor"

Apostolic Tradition: "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (Justin Martyr, First Apology, A.D. 151)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5)

Traditions of Men: "Jesus is comparing being born of water (physical birth) to being born of the Spirit (spiritual birth by excepting Christ into your heart)."

Apostolic Tradition: "And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Irenaeus, Fragment 34, A.D. 190)


This is why Apostolic Tradition is important, because with out it there is simply traditions of men.

 

[Sapiens]

An Argument From Scripture maintains that something is true simply because it is written in what someone considers to be scripture (e.g., God exists because the Bible says God exists.) An Argument From Scripture must assume that the scripture and its interpretation are reliable, but then that's the nature of scripture, no? So at it's very base the Argument from Scripture involves the inherent illogic of circular reasoning. Arguments From Scripture rest on the circular argument of scripture being believed because God revealed and/or inspired it and thus it must be true. For this argument to be sound, it must be demonstrated that the scripture in question is, in fact, reliable, it must be shown that if the book in question, the source, says something, then that statement is likely to be true.

Let's look at the Bible, for the moment, and face facts ... it has been shown repeatedly to be scientifically wrong. This is why the YECs go nuts trying to deny that geological evidence shows no trace of Noah's flood, that the human race is far older than the years predicted by adding up the ages of people in Biblical genealogies, and those are just items in contention. Even the most wacked out Bible thumper has given up on claims that the sun revolves around the Earth or that the Earth is flat (or ever was flat) though that is what scripture states or implies..

The Bible has also been shown to have its history be wrong, though that is harder to nail down then the scientific arguments. It appears that Exodus has no historical backing; there is no archeological evidence that Jews were enslaved in Egypt; there is no evidence for millions of people wandering about in the desert. There's no historical evidence of a large empire of David and Solomon. The ancient nation of Israel appears to have begin as a more political movement out of the general Canaanite populations.

The Bible contains contradictions between the four gospels (and other Bible books) that cast doubt on biblical reliability The Bible contains forgeries. Many of the letters of "Paul" are fake and clearly not written by Paul. This includes the following line in 2 Timothy which says all of scripture is true, and which is generally recognized as a forgery (2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.) That's about as circular as one might get; and the Bible contains many, many, failed prophecies: "2,000 years of 'any day now.'"

Apologists argue that the scriptures are honest depictions of the originals: that the Bible was copied very meticulously and so we can be confident that what we have are not substantively different than the originals. Some apologists even argue that the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that the Biblical manuscripts vary very little. Others include stories of multiple independent translations which differed by only a few words. They generally argue that:

1. The texts we have today are very similar to the originals.
2. They were not changed much by editing or translation.
3. Therefore we can accept what they say as true.

The problems with these arguments are many:

1. The texts vary greatly. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a prime example of how vastly different versions were.
2. Translation and editing changed the works greatly over the years and religious texts are rife with theological disagreement, editing, and editing of editing.
3. The conclusion and argument itself is entirely a red herring: Even a perfect copy of a work of fiction is still a work of fiction.

with thanks to Iron Chariots Wiki

 

[arthra]

Windwalker in the opening post wrote:

It is impossible to say "God's word says....", because what they are reading is completely filtered through their own mind's interpretive frameworks; language, culture, personality, developmental stages, cognitive abilities, fears, anxieties, hopes, expectations, needs, desires, and a long list of such filters through which the whole of reality is mediated, including their religion's sacred scriptures.

I think the above may hold true in a lot of ways for most religious groups...however in the case of the Baha'i Faith the authorized interpretations of our Writings are clearly through a chain of authority from the Prophet/Revelator Himself... Baha'u'llah specified the authority of Interpreter of His Writings was His eldest son Abdul-Baha.. Abdul-Baha in His turn specified Shoghi Effendi ...as interpreter. All the translations into the variety of languages which the Writings appear use the model of Shoghi Effendi's translations and interpretations. The Universal House of Justice which is the current Center of our Faith defers to Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi when making any use or reference to the Baha'i Writings.

Every Baha'i is free to have their own personal interpretations and will say or write something is their personal view but by themselves these have no weight or authority... They cannot go around saying what the Writings say without deference to the authorized interpretations of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. So our Faith has remained unified and at one on the use of the Writings of our Faith.

 

[savagewind]

You're right, of course, but Windwalker is talking specifically about literalists. They've gained a lot of ground the past 100 years, and are very popular. I think the allure is that it seems so simple. Just read it and you know the truth, but it's a deception. You're presented by a preacher's/teachers's views and opinions, but presented as the "correct literal translation" of the text, and the audience never realizes that there are so many ways this could be interpreted differently. Then after they're hooked, anyone presenting any alternative are automatically rejected as "new agers" or "liberal christians" and such.

Or satan.

There is something in the mind that is apt to accept the first answer to questions right or wrong.

 

[Christ's Lamb]

They disagree as much as they agree, so I don't see how they're much help. Plus, the meaning of words changes over time and through translation, so when you read them you are imposing meaning on their work that wasn't there at the time.[/QUOTE/]

Exactly! That is where the authority of the Church comes in. Christ created his Church so that we can have an infallible decree of what is or is not true. The Church safe guards Christ's teachings, including the bible, which was created by the members of the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the Church.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is why Apostolic Tradition is important, because with out it there is simply traditions of men.

What you're describing is that the written record of the apostolic tradition supplants and complements your holy scripture, and essentially just added more written holy scripture to your list. I'm not sure how you avoid interpretation of your holy book by adding interpretations of the writings of people who made their own interpretations a long time ago. In a way, you just replaced one literalism with another. Instead of being literal with the Bible, now you're literal with the writings of the traditions. Or put it this way, you now have put the apostolic writings as God's true word and the apostles interpretations as the true interpretations. It only adds one more layer.

 

[gsa]

Exactly! That is where the authority of the Church comes in. Christ created his Church so that we can have an infallible decree of what is or is not true. The Church safe guards Christ's teachings, including the bible, which was created by the members of the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the Church.

Right. A claim to authority that stands or falls on an unsubstantiated supernatural belief.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Christianity never used the bible as the sole rule of faith, until Martin Luther that is. It was always Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority. Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition, thus Tradition is the keys to unlocking the true interpretation of the Bible. Where can we find Church Tradition? In the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

I don't think you want to bring tradition into this conversation. I hear different things from different RC members, but it seems equally strange to say that tradition unlocks a 'True' interpretation. That makes it sound as if the truth is contained in a golden egg in some closet somewhere. Anybody can become Martin Luther then and say he's found the lost egg. You've already had church divisions and battles between clergy over what truth is, and it goes back long before Martin Luther. Luther was just one of many Luther's that the church produced over the centuries. It produced them regularly, all the time all the time; all inheriting the same attributes. Now how did they all get the same attributes if not from a similar parent?

 

[Christ's Lamb]

I don't think you want to bring tradition into this conversation. I hear different things from different RC members, but it seems equally strange to say that tradition unlocks a 'True' interpretation. That makes it sound as if the truth is contained in a golden egg in some closet somewhere. Anybody can become Martin Luther then and say he's found the lost egg. You've already had church divisions and battles between clergy over what truth is, and it goes back long before Martin Luther. Luther was just one of many Luther's that the church produced over the centuries. It produced them regularly, all the time all the time; all inheriting the same attributes. Now how did they all get the same attributes if not from a similar parent?

The Church did not produce them, they apostated simply because they chose to leave the Church because of their own personal belief were contradicted in the Church.

Apostolic Tradition does provide the correct interpretation of Scripture, along with Church authority. The word of God makes up what is written and not written. What is not written in Apostolic Tradition.

 

[Robert.Evans]

People will cite their religion's scriptures in discussions or disputes over differences in beliefs to settle the debate in their favor. You will hear claims, "The Bible says...", "God says....", "The Holy Koran says....", etc., but in all of these cases such beliefs in external authorities such as this completely ignores the person interpreting the words. It ignore themselves. It presumes that what they are understanding by reading something outside themselves qualifies as objective truth. It completely ignores the processes involved in how we perceive and interpret truth and reality, and in effect absolves themselves of any responsibility in absolutist thought. It denies that they say what they say God says.

It is impossible to say "God's word says....", because what they are reading is completely filtered through their own mind's interpretive frameworks; language, culture, personality, developmental stages, cognitive abilities, fears, anxieties, hopes, expectations, needs, desires, and a long list of such filters through which the whole of reality is mediated, including their religion's sacred scriptures. "God's word says...", is in reality, what their culture and personality is capable of seeing, and nothing more. Therefore, as one grows and develops, and their consciousness is expanded through various types of awareness that changes over time, what "God's word says...", will become different. It is therefore impossible to cite something you read as an authority, because it has the individual's mind and culture completely embedded within that interpretation.

I have yet to hear any literalist deal with this reality. How can they cite scripture as authoritative, when they are the interpreters? I will even add, that to cite scholars, also has that problem. Even at best, the scholar is still embedded within his own set of presumptions. Is objective truth ever truly objective?

It's spiritually discerned.

 

[Christ's Lamb]

What you're describing is that the written record of the apostolic tradition supplants and complements your holy scripture, and essentially just added more written holy scripture to your list. I'm not sure how you avoid interpretation of your holy book by adding interpretations of the writings of people who made their own interpretations a long time ago. In a way, you just replaced one literalism with another. Instead of being literal with the Bible, now you're literal with the writings of the traditions. Or put it this way, you now have put the apostolic writings as God's true word and the apostles interpretations as the true interpretations. It only adds one more layer.

I should state that not every word the Church Fathers wrote down are infallible, thus if it was it would be scripture but it is not. So, God himself did not write these writings through these men. What the writings of the Church Fathers do discripe is early beliefs of the Church such as those examples I gave above. The beliefs of the early church that is not found in the bible would be sacred Tradition, which some of those beliefs were recorded by early Church Fathers, and others that were not written down are found in the teachings of the Church. As more time went on, more traditions were put into writing by the Fathers.

 

[Sapiens]

It's spiritually discerned.

"Spiritually discerned" is your best response when asked for objective criteria? Is that supposed to be sarcasm, or are you serious? That's not better than, "I make it up as I need it."

 

[savagewind]

It's spiritually discerned.

I think I understand spiritually discerned but how do you tell the difference between personal opinion and Spirit confirmation?

 

[fantome profane]

Christianity never used the bible as the sole rule of faith, until Martin Luther that is. It was always Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority. Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition, thus Tradition is the keys to unlocking the true interpretation of the Bible. Where can we find Church Tradition? In the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

All the same problems still exist of course. Tradition needs interpretation as much or more than scripture does. And how we interpret tradition is coloured by our human prejudices, culture, histories and personalities. Just as these things affected the original creation of any tradition, they will affect how that tradition is understood (or misunderstood) and how it is practiced today. Tradition can be wrong, or interpreted incorrectly or both.


(And don't get me started about "authority" )

 

[Ouroboros]

I should state that not every word the Church Fathers wrote down are infallible, thus if it was it would be scripture but it is not. So, God himself did not write these writings through these men. What the writings of the Church Fathers do discripe is early beliefs of the Church such as those examples I gave above. The beliefs of the early church that is not found in the bible would be sacred Tradition, which some of those beliefs were recorded by early Church Fathers, and others that were not written down are found in the teachings of the Church. As more time went on, more traditions were put into writing by the Fathers.

I understand, but I think it doesn't solve the problem Windwalker brought up.

 

[Christ's Lamb]

All the same problems still exist of course. Tradition needs interpretation as much or more than scripture does. And how we interpret tradition is coloured by our human prejudices, culture, histories and personalities. Just as these things affected the original creation of any tradition, they will affect how that tradition is understood (or misunderstood) and how it is practiced today. Tradition can be wrong, or interpreted incorrectly or both.


(And don't get me started about "authority" )

Apostolic Tradition is not man-made it is God-made. Indeed, Church Authority is the correct interpreter of Scripture, why, because it is guided by God. Only the Catholic Church has lasted 2,000 years, longer than any organization created by man, and it still hasn't altered its teachings that have been dogmatically declared, nor has it contradicted it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Apostolic Tradition is not man-made it is God-made. Indeed, Church Authority is the correct interpreter of Scripture, why, because it is guided by God. Only the Catholic Church has lasted 2,000 years, longer than any organization created by man, and it still hasn't altered its teachings that have been dogmatically declared, nor has it contradicted it.

Really we aren't discussing whether that is the case. It is beside the point, because we are talking about the impact of human reasoning. Humans see things differently from each other. That is what is the problem with saying some particular item is authoritative. Even if something is unchanged, the perception of it can change. The understanding of words in languages can change. The attitude of leaders can change. Nothing stays the same when people are involved. You want to claim Church Authority is the exception? Really?