Not accusing you of causing trouble. Reassuring you that I'm not out to cause you trouble, nor is anyone else around here.
Ah, thank you. I did misunderstand. But you see how what you said could’ve easily been taken more than one way? That is my problem with exercising the authority of Scripture over another person – you can read it more than one way. Not that some ways aren’t better than others – I don’t advocate the idea that all are valid. Far from it.
Well then I guess the thing that confuses me is if you aren't relying on the Bible as the source of the information you believe about God, then where are you getting that information? Is there another source of information that you consider more reliable, and if so based on what evidence?
Well, there is not a more reliable source, in an either/or sense. I tend to look at it this way. The Spirit dwells in me. The kingdom is within me, as Christ says. If I want to know the truth, be it objective or not, I need to go within. Many don’t like this – it creates a paradox or contradiction, because they say the Holy Spirit indwells you, but the truth is not in you. The truth is in this book that the Spirit explains to you.
And then the next question, naturally, is it is so absolute, and so plain what it says, then how come even conservative minded Christians are split in what they think? They say “plain as day” but they disagree. If you can explain to me why the Spirit would move these to completely different understandings if it wasn’t subjective to begin with, I would be impressed. That’s not a mock, I’m serious. If you can explain how all these churches are rightly deemed Christian, listening to the absolute word of the Spirit, and yet passionately disagree to the point of discord, I would be impressed.
The thing is it is argued that those who don’t take Scripture as inerrant make up their own morality – which is inconsistent to then say God wrote the Ten Commandments and that Law is evident around the world. If I’m making up my own morality, why does my sentiments reflect the Ten?
The other thing that reflects this opposition to individual understanding is that as soon as you say “I can decide for myself what it means” you take power over you away from someone. When someone teaches you that the bible is absolute, there’s only one way to read it, and you’re a babe that doesn’t know where to begin… so so so easy to manipulate and control you, unless you are naturally slanted towards being skeptical of what someone tells you. I know, I’ve been there.
Often when someone passionately opposed internal interpretation, they also come off as controlling in their teaching/preaching. Some of the mildest preachers I’ve heard, where also the most liberal in allowing Christians to think for themselves. Not an absolute rule (I knew a highly conservative, yet patient preacher), but a general rule. And that is enough behavioral manifestations to convince me that absolute interpretation isn’t usually healthy. It’s ok if one wants to believe such, but imo a liberal approach tends to influence more Christ-like behavior.
Would highest authority be a better term than absolute? By absolute authority we don't mean to imply that no other source can be helpful or consulted, but rather that when there is a conflict between something and the Bible, we follow the Bible. I would say we don't always have to agree on what especially some of the more obscure parts of the Bible mean in order to agree that the Bible is the highest authority and when we understand it, we will submit to what it teaches us.
But what happens when submitting to what it teaches conflicts with other Christians, even on more obscure passages?
Let me tell you an experience. At a difficult time in my life, I dreamed of communing in a Missouri Synod church. An ultra-conservative branch of the American Lutheran church. I was very conservative, then. I would read journals printed by this church, and dream of the Eucharist.
Fast forward seven years. I am visiting my husband (then boyfriend) and it is within my ability to go to a LCMS church. I am aware of closed communion, and their thoughts on being confirmed to go to communion. So, I asked if it would be possible for me to have communion, and he was like “sure, we’ll talk.”
I agreed with everything concerning Communion. I believe Jesus is in, with, and under the bread and wine, I believe it helps regenerate and strengthen me, that there are spiritual blessings. I believe Jesus is the Son of God, fully God/Man, died on a cross and literally rose again. I believe and agree with all this.
I was denied the Supper because I wasn’t entirely sure (I wasn’t even firm on these) about women pastors, gay couples, and other unrelated topics unrelated to the Supper. I had moved away from a steep conservative slant, though what I believe concerning Christ Himself is the same. And I thought it was His table…
It’s not so much that I was surprised, but I won’t lie, that hurt. I didn’t quarrel with him, or challenge his decision – I even went out of my way to say I respected the decision. I even went again next Sunday. I really do enjoy that liturgy.
Maybe you agree with closed Communion. Many people do. One reasoning is to make sure the believer doesn’t hurt themselves, by teaching them proper examination (which I agreed with that aspect, too, btw). And yet… would Jesus condemn a guest at a table, which comes willingly even with an incomplete understanding? “Anyone who comes to Me, I will by no means cast out?” And I am applying this to the traditional understanding of the Real Presence, that Jesus is there and ready to heal and bless. Does it make sense that going to Him would result in judgement… for not thinking that women should be barred from preaching? Could maybe Paul mean something else, because that seems inconsistent with the character of Jesus. But, that is what it says, that is what it means… even though it makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the Gospels. It seems that you end up allowing contradictory understandings, in order to protect a literal reading of the text.
When you stand on an absolute, either/or understanding, it seems to be “ You either accept Christ or you don’t.” So when someone comes confused, and persists in questions, in order to categorize them, they get labeled as refusing to see the Truth – they get rejected, even though they are searching. Because that is the only thing that an absolute understanding of believers – in other words salvation and being saved - will allow. There’s no “well, I see this good in being a believer, but I am concerned with this.” When someone says that, what they “really” mean is “I don’t want to know the Truth.” We don’t think of faith being a transition, but a decision, an instantaneous change, being born again (though I know no mother who ever gave birth instantly). For some, it is quick. And of course, not all Christians or even Protestants ascribe to that – the LCMS doesn’t. But it seems to be a constant in my observation that people who believe in simple, born again or not ideas of salvation, also simplify everything else.
I would say that the information they have received and believed about God still had it's origin with the Bible so they are still acknowledging its authority, even if it is mediated through pastors or translators. Having the Bible available to all in their heart language is one of the causes I believe most strongly in and support.
Yes, I support this as well. Bibles are so abundantly in the Western world that it is hard imagining not being allowed to have one.
And yes, the bold makes sense. “Faith comes by hearing.”
I'll never say that the Bible is the only way God can speak to people, but I've also never heard of any Christians with limited access to the Bible saying, don't worry about getting us Bibles, we already have enough knowledge of God through other means.
This is not what I am saying. This is an extreme picture of what I’m saying. I am for the Bible in that it has many valuable truths that have helped me through life, given me peace, salvation and meaning. I am “against” the Bible in that I think God can communicate in other ways, even if it contradicts the text. Because to me, God is not bound to a text, and He is not bound by human language or ideas.
I used to believe in an absolute understanding. In conjunction with other circumstances, that tortured me. If perfect love casts out fear, then how I was reading it did not contain perfect love. And the reason for this is that there was much stress and fear over understanding it correctly and “dividing it rightly” that it didn’t minister to me as well as it could’ve otherwise. The fear of misunderstanding overridden the message itself.
I am not saying a literal interpretation doesn’t minister (at other times, it did for me as well), but with my particular situation, that understanding aggravated it. That is me, however. Many people point to an experience, or an “aha” kind of moment when they believe Scripture was absolute (unless they were raised such). Well, that was my three year “aha” lol
See, as I understand it, moral relativism is not “anything goes.” That is the stark, black and white thinking I’m talking about. It can’t fit in an absolute, no exceptions slot, so it must be corrupt and horrible through and through.
The absolute understanding cannot see that even though we as Christians don’t have a black and white moral standard/nature in ourselves (we are saved and justified, but we still sin). If there is a sliding scale on sin, would that suggest a sliding scale on morality as well? If the sin varies in severity, wouldn’t the morality and the weight of the law vary to match the sin?
If we are judged according to our deeds, then doesn’t that mean that the punch behind the law would vary? If you would say that theft is absolutely wrong, doesn’t it then cease to be absolutely wrong if the punishment is not absolutely the same either? If the punishment varies, that suggests that the weight of the law varies, and that’s not absolute. Absolute would be exactly the same, across the board. So in punishing the boy, for the moral law to have absolute justice, theft being absolutely wrong, he would have to receive the same penalty as the bank robber or vice versa. Does that make sense? I’m not sure it makes sense to me.
I can, however, forward you a letter from a Christian whose people have no Bible in their language requesting prayer and any other assistance possible so that they can get God's word in a language they can clearly understand.
Sure! I can photocopy a Voice of the Martyrs request card where you can request a free copy of Tortured for Christ. Well, actually, I think you can find a request form online. Either way, the book is blood curling.
It's not a matter of ability or desire to understand (in fact I value having a right understanding of what someone else is saying); it is a matter of understanding and rejecting some of the assumptions inherent in that position. Yet we do seem to at least be coming to a better understanding of what each of us means by the term authority of scripture so the discussion isn't completely fruitless after all.
Well, I hope that you don’t think that because I don’t believe the Bible is an absolute authoritative book (it is good for learning and growing and being corrected), that I know nothing about it or conservative thought. On the contrary, it seems many scholars/believers become liberal because they know it so well.
I will get around to your rebuttals. I wish to say they are interesting and especially with the nit-picking speculation, that makes a lot of sense.
As for your scripture references, please take the time to look them up and include the whole story (pet peeve of mine) if you're going to reference them in a forum.
Sorry, I assume most of us are familiar with Scripture and aware of online concordances in which verses can be found almost instantly. Search engines turn up the references instantly too, if you describe the story in a few words.
Perhaps I should be more diligent, but I think if someone is sincerely interested in the context, they will look it up or ask. The texts weren’t divided in chapter and verse for a very long time – that wasn’t their original form so I try not to think of the texts that way. I try to think of Scripture more so in the lessons and spiritual comfort/correction rather than a reference book of morality. While I suppose it’s not safe to assume, if I am challenged, I will certainly produce the chapter and verse. I spent a long time on this post, so if you will, please forgive my not referencing a verse here and there.
Blessings.