The Impossibility of Scriptural Authority

[Awoon]

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.

Your answers really don't help the people with cancer. Bible tradition or Apostolic Tradition, where are the Healers today?

 

[fantome profane]

Apostolic Tradition is not man-made it is God-made.

No it is not.

Church Authority is the correct interpreter of Scripture

No it is not.

because it is guided by God.

No it is not.


All you have done is make declarations based on your own fallible human interpretation. Based on your own personal human culture and history and personality. You could not have illustrated the point better if you were trying.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

The early church didn't call itself catholic. The first church government was the orthodox (if I remember right), and not until a couple of hundred years later was the catholic church established as such, after much of power-play and politics.

And actually, the Japanese monarchy is an older organization. Over 2,600 years of continuity. It doesn't prove its divinity.

The oldest religions are Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and more. They also have traditions older than Christianity.

I think that your label "Christian mystic" should give yourself an idea that God is more about the mystery that you personally are experiencing, rather than the words of men (Bible, traditions, or otherwise).

 

[RedDragon94]

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?

Okay, here's what I believe. As long as you interpret from the scripture no one can refute it unless they bring another scripture that is in contradiction to your interpretation of scripture, then you have to study the passage all over to find out what it means. Scripture speaks from the point of view of man and God in conversation with each other and that makes it a primary source for theology. This is why we use it so much to answer theological questions.

 

[Sapiens]

Apostolic Tradition is not man-made it is God-made.

Unsupported claim.

Indeed, Church Authority is the correct interpreter of Scripture,

Unsupported claim.

why, because it is guided by God.

Unsupported claim.

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.

Unsupported claim and incorrect.

 

[Christ's Lamb]

No it is not.No it is not.No it is not.


All you have done is make declarations based on your own fallible human interpretation. Based on your own personal human culture and history and personality. You could not have illustrated the point better if you were trying.

Well I am giving my answers based on Catholic teachings.

 

[Christ's Lamb]

The early church didn't call itself catholic. The first church government was the orthodox (if I remember right), and not until a couple of hundred years later was the catholic church established as such, after much of power-play and politics.

And actually, the Japanese monarchy is an older organization. Over 2,600 years of continuity. It doesn't prove its divinity.

The oldest religions are Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and more. They also have traditions older than Christianity.

I think that your label "Christian mystic" should give yourself an idea that God is more about the mystery that you personally are experiencing, rather than the words of men (Bible, traditions, or otherwise).

The earlist reference to the church being called Catholic is in a letter by St. Ignatius in the second century. The early church didn't have to go by the term "Catholic" to be the same organization as the Catholic Church we know today.

The Orthodox Church claims to be the church founded by Christ, while the Catholic Church claims they split from us.

The Japaneese Monarchy can change any thing it teaches at any points it wants because it's not a relgious organization that claims to be founded by God made man.

One must first realize what Christianity claims to be in the first place. It Catholicism, and Orthodoxy also, taches that Christianity is the fulfilled version of Judaism, thus Judaism's tradition would also be the Church's tradition under the Old Convent.

 

[gsa]

Well I am giving my answers based on Catholic teachings.

And those teachings are in error.

 

[Sapiens]

Well I am giving my answers based on Catholic teachings.

Which are at best "fallible human interpretations" and at worst outright lies.

I base my answers on things far older and better proven than those of the johnny-come-lately Christians that in their hubris call themselves Catholic, just as you, in your hubris, imagine that you know better than anyone who differs with you.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

Here's the problem, and it applies to the Bahia who cited his authorized interpreter as well. In both your example and his, it makes someone's interpretation infallible, magically. Even if as part of that sort of a system of belief, like believing Mohammad rode to heaven on a horse as part of the beliefs that give the teachings an authority, fallible men still have to read and interpret their interpretations. The problem is the illusion that when someone reads something on a page full of words, that how they interpret it, what they are hearing, is in fact free from their own interpretive lenses. "It's the plain meaning of the words", is cited, and the assumption is that just because they see the words on a page, and to them it's "perfectly clear and plain", that that's the end of the story! It is not.

What the illusion is is when you have those of your group read it and all have "the same" understanding, that means that understanding is the "right" one. The reality is that they interpret it that way themselves, because they are products of the same culture and wear the same set of lens you do. But if you have someone with years more experience, and a different culture, and different starting point, and subsequently a different lens the see through, their understanding will not be the same as that group's. And then you have those who are part of his group and they see what he sees for the same reasons. In other words, interpretations are all relative. So even if you had a magical cause who "delivered the word", or "established the tradition", people still have to interpret it. And so when they claim how there are believing is "God authorized", it's a fallacy. It's a magical projection of owns on worldview stamped with divine authority. And the next group over does the same thing, and because neither they nor you can understanding beyond thinking in these terms, wearing this particular lens, they see each other as serving the devil, or something. "Both cannot be right!", is the thought, which itself is an interpretive lens, and framework through which truth is filtered!

Everything goes through these filters. Nothing can be claimed to be authoritative as "God's word", in any objective fashion, because no one can bypass these in reading their authorities. In other words, even if that Bible were 100% dictation from God, or the prophet of a religion had a 100% accurate interpretation, YOU don't in interpreting their words. The only way you could claim such authority is if you can claim to bypass all these filters in your personal understandings, knowing directly from God, as a mouthpiece of God, or oracle, a prophet yourself. People just don't see the set of eyes they look out through. And that's the problem. They are blind to themselves, not seeing that everyone is doing exactly as them, and they doing exactly the same as those they see as confused or lost. True objectivity comes in holding no judgment. That's the beginning of wisdom.

 

[Sapiens]

... True objectivity comes in holding no judgment. That's the beginning of wisdom.

I would disagree. I would say that true objectivity comes in judging EVERYTHING as skeptically as possible, no judgement is just that, a lack of judgement. Sorry ... the turn of phrase was just sitting there and I couldn't help it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

If you 'believe' then it is spiritually discerned. It is the Grace of God.

 

[fantome profane]

True objectivity comes in holding no judgment. That's the beginning of wisdom.

I would say that true objectivity comes in judging EVERYTHING as skeptically as possible,

You are both wrong. True objectivity doesn't come. Period. Full stop. No human being is capable of full objectivity. That is the point.

 

[Windwalker]

I would disagree. I would say that true objectivity comes in judging EVERYTHING as skeptically as possible, no judgement is just that, a lack of judgement. Sorry ... the turn of phrase was just sitting there and I couldn't help it.

Yes, it is a turn of phrase and meant as a bit of a koan. I said it as a attempt to get the mind to deconstruct these views about objective reality which are held by the mind. I obviously don't mean it in that sense in that it contradicts what I said in the OP. It challenges the view of the so-called "skeptic" as well, who in his desire to find "reality" through reason and the sciences does in essence the very self-same problem the Biblical literalist does in seeking an external authority to reveal "the truth" to them, meaning objective reality.

What I am saying flips it all on its head. In making no judgement of something, you allow it to simply be what it is and speak as it is, without the judgment of the mind upon it, placing it within the bounds of this category, that value, this social context, this doctrine, that paradigm, this worldview, and any such mental models of reality that we try to interpret EVERYTHING though. If you simply make no assessment, no definitions, no categories, no contexts and allow it to simply be, that is when you begin to enter into really knowing something as it is, without your judgments imposed upon it. That to me, ironically, in a turn of phrase, is that every "objective reality" that the seeking mind desires to grasp and hold, categorize, contextualize, compartmentalize, and otherwise define with the mind and look at as objective - is an impossibility. It is the reasoning mind looking to the reasoning mind to know truth. It begins with itself, and ends with itself, never escaping the loop.

I call this the beginning of wisdom because wisdom sees the illusory nature of our beliefs when held as "objective" reality, call that scientific truth or call that God's word. Beliefs and models of reality are fine, inasmuch as they are useful and serve a purpose to be able to talk about things to ourselves and others, communicate ideas, and so forth. When they fail, is when they become a replacement for the non-judging mind, the observer. When they replace this with themselves, they block seeing the world as it is, beyond the reasoning or thinking mind, without us imposing these colorized realities of the mind into it, or at the very least minimizing that. Thoughts and ideas and beliefs and teachings are just that. But people look at those, and to those as reality, the truth of the world, the truth of God. And they are all doing the same thing, just with different updated contexts, which those useful, are not objective truth themselves.

 

[Windwalker]

You are both wrong. True objectivity doesn't come. Period. Full stop. No human being is capable of full objectivity. That is the point.

I'd be careful in speaking with absolutist terms, in that that itself is a claim to know objective reality with the reasoning mind.

 

[fantome profane]

I'd be careful in speaking with absolutist terms, in that that itself is a claim to know objective reality with the reasoning mind.

It was a koan.

 

[Windwalker]

It was a koan.

Uh huh... Except you didn't offer any contrast except a statement of fact, of course.

 

[Windwalker]

William James put it this way, when we have any experience it immediately hits the mind and is split into two parts; subject and object. We instantly assess the experience in terms of "what was that" (objective), and "what does it mean" (subjective). The answer to the question of "what was that" is dependent upon the models of reality one has learned in life from common languages and symbols, as well as their own abilities to conceptualize and abstract all of these within their developmental stage of growth. None of these equates to a true objective "reality", inasmuch as it is know outside these filters directly. Rather it is best stated as an outward looking gaze to something, seeing it as an object of observation. It's not objective in any sense of meaning it is unmediated and therefore absolute, but rather it is 'objective' in the sense it is looking at something as an object, outside of ones own interior gaze.

The subjective question, "What does this mean", likewise has mental constructs to place meaning and value on it. Is it positive or negative, is it practical, useful, a waste of time, a great valuable insight for the world, and so forth are likewise relative to one's cultural and developmental stage. The more emotionally mature person for instance will hold these things subjectively at a much wider, more inclusive valuation than a less mature person whose frame of reference is more narcissistic in general. So as the subjective knowledge grows, so too does the understanding of these things subjectively.

In neither case, can they be understood as independent truths outside these relative positions of both the culture and the individual within it, in either subjective or objective questions. Both culture and the individual within it grow and mature, and so too comes the lived reality of their lives because of it. The world itself becomes transformed to them, and through them through the process of awakening to themselves in ever-widening circles.

The mistake is that people see the reality of their worlds through their eyes as being in touch with reality itself, as if it were some static thing, some unchanging static object outside themselves. It is an illusion of the mind. It is an illusion because it does not see itself in the creation of their own lived reality, in how it understands truth itself both objective and subjective. It does not see the set of eyes that evaluates everything. So, when I say to drop the illusion and simply see the world without the judgment of mind, objectively or subjectively, we begin to see that this subject/object dualism is itself simply a mode of interfacing with reality all the way up and down a relative plane, and that we ourselves can in fact see the world or reality beyond this split into subject and object that occurs, and see the subject and object split "objectively" beyond it, and "subjectively" as it. The terms no longer truly apply.

So when it comes to reading one's Bible or Koran, or listening to their prophet speaking "God's word", they will only ever at best hear what they are able to hear based on their culture and their own individual stage of growth. Unless something shifts awareness to see the eyes they are seeing out through, they will never see beyond them into any sort of "objective" truth. And when that happens, this static "reality" the mind hoped to find to moor itself too, becomes instead this infinite reality not held within any one perceptive truth.

 

[Christ's Lamb]

Which are at best "fallible human interpretations" and at worst outright lies.

I base my answers on things far older and better proven than those of the johnny-come-lately Christians that in their hubris call themselves Catholic, just as you, in your hubris, imagine that you know better than anyone who differs with you.

Well coming back to my first message, I was just pointing out that not all Christians went "by the book" it was more complicated that just the bible alone.

 

[Christ's Lamb]

Here's the problem, and it applies to the Bahia who cited his authorized interpreter as well. In both your example and his, it makes someone's interpretation infallible, magically. Even if as part of that sort of a system of belief, like believing Mohammad rode to heaven on a horse as part of the beliefs that give the teachings an authority, fallible men still have to read and interpret their interpretations. The problem is the illusion that when someone reads something on a page full of words, that how they interpret it, what they are hearing, is in fact free from their own interpretive lenses. "It's the plain meaning of the words", is cited, and the assumption is that just because they see the words on a page, and to them it's "perfectly clear and plain", that that's the end of the story! It is not.

What the illusion is is when you have those of your group read it and all have "the same" understanding, that means that understanding is the "right" one. The reality is that they interpret it that way themselves, because they are products of the same culture and wear the same set of lens you do. But if you have someone with years more experience, and a different culture, and different starting point, and subsequently a different lens the see through, their understanding will not be the same as that group's. And then you have those who are part of his group and they see what he sees for the same reasons. In other words, interpretations are all relative. So even if you had a magical cause who "delivered the word", or "established the tradition", people still have to interpret it. And so when they claim how there are believing is "God authorized", it's a fallacy. It's a magical projection of owns on worldview stamped with divine authority. And the next group over does the same thing, and because neither they nor you can understanding beyond thinking in these terms, wearing this particular lens, they see each other as serving the devil, or something. "Both cannot be right!", is the thought, which itself is an interpretive lens, and framework through which truth is filtered!

Everything goes through these filters. Nothing can be claimed to be authoritative as "God's word", in any objective fashion, because no one can bypass these in reading their authorities. In other words, even if that Bible were 100% dictation from God, or the prophet of a religion had a 100% accurate interpretation, YOU don't in interpreting their words. The only way you could claim such authority is if you can claim to bypass all these filters in your personal understandings, knowing directly from God, as a mouthpiece of God, or oracle, a prophet yourself. People just don't see the set of eyes they look out through. And that's the problem. They are blind to themselves, not seeing that everyone is doing exactly as them, and they doing exactly the same as those they see as confused or lost. True objectivity comes in holding no judgment. That's the beginning of wisdom.

Well in my first message I was just pointing out that the idea of the "bible alone" is the only rule of faith was developed by Martin Luther in the 1500s. Before this, there was Bible, Sacred Tradition, and Church Authority. If it is right or wrong, was not my point. I was just explaining what early Christians believed and what modern Catholics and Orthodox Christians still believe.

It does require faith, just like it requires Buddhists to have faith in the belief of Buddha's enlightenment, and not think he was simply mentally ill. And faith in the part of muslims that Mohammed was a prophet and not also mentally ill, etc.