When an evangelical says they believe in the authority of scripture, they typically mean that the Bible is the supreme authority for doctrine and practice and it's completely reliable in everything it addresses. Some will go further and claim complete inherency that the Bible is without error in all its statements, including statements about history, science, and other matters outside its primary purpose of teaching us about salvation. This comes from a heritage that includes the Chicago statement on biblical inherency written in 1978.
A mainline Protestant, someone from a Methodist, Presbyterian, or other denomination that's more progressive, might affirm the authority of scripture while acknowledging that the Bible was written by humans in specific historical contexts addressing specific issues and that our interpretation of it must take that context seriously. They might believe the Bible is completely trustworthy on matters of faith and salvation while acknowledging human error in other domains.
Some scholars in this tradition would argue that different parts of the Bible even contradict each other on minor points and that's okay. The Bible is still authoritative even if it contains internal inconsistencies.
Catholics have a different framework altogether. The Bible is authoritative, yes, but it's not the only source of revelation. Sacred tradition, the living transmission of the faith through the church, including the teachings of the early church fathers and the magisterium, is equally authoritative. The Bible and tradition together received in the church are the sources of revelation and the church through the magisterium has the authority to interpret scripture authentically. You don't come to the Bible as an isolated individual reader. You read it within the living community of the church. Vatican 2 reaffirmed this. Orthodox Christians would agree with Catholics that scripture and tradition are both authoritative, though they don't emphasize the role of the institutional magisterium in the same way. The ecumenical councils are authoritative, but there's more emphasis on the consensus of the church fathers across time.
Here's where it gets even more interesting. An evangelical might believe the Bible is completely inherent, yet interpret a passage in ways that a scholar using historical critical methods would completely reject. A mainline Protestant scholar might acknowledge imperfections in the text while being incredibly rigorous in interpreting it accurately within its historical context.
A Catholic might rely more heavily on traditional interpretations passed down through the church. All of these approaches to the Bible stem from different assumptions about what it means for the Bible to be authoritative. if you're from a liturgical tradition, you've experienced something that evangelical churches often don't emphasize as much. The Bible is read within the structure of the liturgical calendar. The passages you hear on any given Sunday have been selected and organized by the church over centuries. That context shapes meaning.
A mainline Protestant, someone from a Methodist, Presbyterian, or other denomination that's more progressive, might affirm the authority of scripture while acknowledging that the Bible was written by humans in specific historical contexts addressing specific issues and that our interpretation of it must take that context seriously. They might believe the Bible is completely trustworthy on matters of faith and salvation while acknowledging human error in other domains.
Some scholars in this tradition would argue that different parts of the Bible even contradict each other on minor points and that's okay. The Bible is still authoritative even if it contains internal inconsistencies.
Catholics have a different framework altogether. The Bible is authoritative, yes, but it's not the only source of revelation. Sacred tradition, the living transmission of the faith through the church, including the teachings of the early church fathers and the magisterium, is equally authoritative. The Bible and tradition together received in the church are the sources of revelation and the church through the magisterium has the authority to interpret scripture authentically. You don't come to the Bible as an isolated individual reader. You read it within the living community of the church. Vatican 2 reaffirmed this. Orthodox Christians would agree with Catholics that scripture and tradition are both authoritative, though they don't emphasize the role of the institutional magisterium in the same way. The ecumenical councils are authoritative, but there's more emphasis on the consensus of the church fathers across time.
Here's where it gets even more interesting. An evangelical might believe the Bible is completely inherent, yet interpret a passage in ways that a scholar using historical critical methods would completely reject. A mainline Protestant scholar might acknowledge imperfections in the text while being incredibly rigorous in interpreting it accurately within its historical context.
A Catholic might rely more heavily on traditional interpretations passed down through the church. All of these approaches to the Bible stem from different assumptions about what it means for the Bible to be authoritative. if you're from a liturgical tradition, you've experienced something that evangelical churches often don't emphasize as much. The Bible is read within the structure of the liturgical calendar. The passages you hear on any given Sunday have been selected and organized by the church over centuries. That context shapes meaning.