Authority of the Bible

Zombrex

In another thread I was genuinely gob smacked to find yet another bizarre (in my humble opinion) argument coming from theists (this seems to be the theme of the month)

BC said to me that the Bible comes first above all other forms of communication with God, including personal communication between a Christian and God.

Now, for anyone who hasn't been paying attention to the vast amount of objections and calls of cyclical reasoning from skeptics and atheists that litter this forum, this to me smacks as a wholly bizarre thing to say.

If the Bible is the ultimate authority then on what grounds does a person first accept that authority.

I ask because I thought this argument was settled a long time ago. The charge of cyclical reasoning was often leveled at Christians on this forum, the argument being

The Bible is the word of God. We know this because it says so in the Bible. We know that statement is true because the Bible is the word of God .. etc, etc

Now I don't know who first responded, but if my memory serves me correctly the response was that it wasn't cyclical reasoning because Christians actually have the authority of the Bible confirmed to them personally by God through some form of private communication between them and God.

That at least makes sense (as much sense as voices in ones head can make). The cyclical reasoning at least is stopped, because there is an external authority confirming that the Bible is actually the word of God.

Using the example in the thread this recently came up with, it would be like seeing a hand written sign saying

"Michael Jackson rapes boys. This sign was written by Michael Jackson"

Naturally someone wouldn't accept that in of itself demonstrated that the statement is true. If on the other hand Michael Jackson was standing beside the sign saying "Yeah, I wrote that. Shamon!" one might accept it.

But this seems to be have flipped a bit on its head by BC's comments. BC seems to be saying that the Bible comes first even above the deity personally communicating to you. Which to me makes no sense, because without this personal communication on what grounds does someone grant the Bible authority in the first place.

So I'm looking for a discussion from Christians along the lines of

why do you actually accept the Bible as being the word of God?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Now I don't know who first responded, but if my memory serves me correctly the response was that it wasn't cyclical reasoning because Christians actually have the authority of the Bible confirmed to them personally by God through some form of private communication between them and God.

That at least makes sense (as much sense as voices in ones head can make). The cyclical reasoning at least is stopped, because there is an external authority confirming that the Bible is actually the word of God.

Your memory may well be at fault - or maybe you were conversing with someone who doesn't understand Christian doctrine very well.

Christians, as an act of faith, believe that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore authoritative. This is not blind faith, as it is based on a number of philosophical arguments and on various kinds of evidence (but not conclusive proof). I guess there may be some Christians out there who accept the Bible as being authoritative because God told them so, and some may even post on this board, but I can't say I've ever met anyone who took that position.

Most Christians view the Bible as being God's word in an objective sense - but God can also speak to us in various other ways. However these other revelations are extremely subjective and so need to be tested by the Bible.

Any other approach to the Bible will just result in cherrypicking - where we pick the bits that we like and reject the rest. that will result in our creating God in man's image, rather than allowing ourselves to be changed and transformed by the Word.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Your memory may well be at fault - or maybe you were conversing with someone who doesn't understand Christian doctrine very well.

Well I was conversing with someone who was trying to convince me that faith in the Bible is more than simply cyclical reasoning (the Bible says it is the word of God, the Bible is not wrong because it is word of God, therefore the Bible is correct when it says it is the word of God)

This person was getting rather annoyed at the charge that faith in the Bible was nonsense from a logical point of view, and was attempting to explain that it has been confirmed to him through personal experience with God that the Bible was correct and should be followed.

In fact I remember this being stated by more than one theists here on more than one occasion. In fact I'm certain this position was stated more than once, so I would be interested if the other Christians on this forum agree with you?

Anyone have something to add?

PDN wrote: »

Christians, as an act of faith, believe that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore authoritative. This is not blind faith, as it is based on a number of philosophical arguments and on various kinds of evidence (but not conclusive proof).

Which are?

Are all of them cyclical (for example, the Bible is the word of God because the prophecies in the Bible came true, which can only mean they were written or inspired by those who knew the future, and only God can do that. We know the prophecies came true because the Bible is the word of God and therefore not in error or imagined, and we know that only God can see the future because it says so in the Bible)

BrianCalgary

Since we have covered this topic so often in the past, wicknight, this is nothing but trolling.

I'm banning you until after Christmas.

You have been around long enough to know better.

Dave!

Why don't you either address his points, or else close the thread, BC?

5uspect

Why don't you ban JC and Wolfsbane for trolling so? Evolution has been explained to them ad nauseum and they still refuses to acknowledge what it actually means and rail against their strawmen.

Scofflaw

Excessive. It's a reasonable question, which appears to deserve its own thread - and it would give the impression, to anyone who doesn't know BC to be fair, that banning is being used in place of discussion.

disappointed,
Scofflaw

5uspect

5uspect wrote: »

Why don't you ban JC and Wolfsbane for trolling so? Evolution has been explained to them ad nauseum and they still refuses to acknowledge what it actually means and rail against their strawmen.

Very much seconded.

philologos

This isn't the place to discuss the moderation of BC, that's what the Feedback forum is for.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't the place to discuss the moderation of BC, that's what the Feedback forum is for.

If you think about it, you might see that complaining to Brian about his moderation here indicates a much greater degree of respect than complaining about his moderation elsewhere.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

BC, my apologies, we have never crossed swords before, but that ban was in IMO carried out more in frustration. I am lifting it. Valid points were raise, they should be addressed.
Wicknight its water under the bridge.
To all, BC's moderation is not a topic for this thread, nor an issue with me.
Asia

Asiaprod

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't the place to discuss the moderation of BC, that's what the Feedback forum is for.

That may be so, but I will deal with it here thank you.
Asia

philologos

Asiaprod wrote: »

That may be so, but I will deal with it here thank you.
Asia

Apologies Asiaprod.

Asiaprod

Jakkass wrote: »

Apologies Asiaprod.

No problem.
Asia

Zombrex

Didn't expect this issue to be quite as controversial as it has turned out to be.

There is a companion thread in the A&A forum here

Perhaps A&A is a better place to discuss it. Theists are of course welcome

BrianCalgary

Asiaprod wrote: »

BC, my apologies, we have never crossed swords before, but that ban was in IMO carried out more in frustration. I am lifting it. Valid points were raise, they should be addressed.
Wicknight its water under the bridge.
To all, BC's moderation is not a topic for this thread, nor an issue with me.
Asia

Very much agreed Asiaprod. Appreciate the support scofflaw.

Excelsior

Why do I place the Bible in authority in my life and what does that mean? It's an obviously problematic question.

One problem is that there are so many areas of our lives where the Bible simply doesn’t tell us how we should behave. Another is that when we try to force the Bible to speak about every part of our lives, we end up twisting it and reading all kinds of stuff into it based on our modern assumptions and personal experiences. And where is the source of authority in that case? A final difficulty is that no matter how we squint at it, the Bible refuses to be a book of basic instructions for life. It remains, stubbornly and frustratingly, a great big sprawling messy story. And how can a story have authority over our lives?

Tom Wright has a bold suggestion that I find helpful. It’s so simple and profound it blows my little mind. He asks us to imagine that someone discovers a lost Shakespeare play, but that the fifth and final act has been lost. Rather than have someone write a fifth act, the existing parts are given to highly trained, sensitive and experienced Shakespearian actors, who are asked to immerse themselves in the story, and then work out a fifth act for themselves. You can see where this is going:

NT WRIGHT wrote:

The first four acts, existing as they did, would be the undoubted ‘authority’ for the task in hand. That is, anyone could properly object to the new improvisation on the grounds that some character was now behaving inconsistently, or that some sub-plot or theme… had not reached its proper conclusion. This authority of the first four acts would not consist - could not consist! - in an implicit command that the actors should repeat the earlier parts of the play over and over again. It would consist in the fact of an as yet unfinished drama, containing its own impetus and forward movement, which demanded to be concluded in an appropriate manner. It would require of the actors a free and responsible entering into the story…

Wright suggests that in the Bible we have been given the first four acts of the Story (Creation, Fall, Israel, Jesus), as well as hints as to how it will end. Our job is to immerse ourselves in the Story, and then improvise the fifth act in the power of the Spirit. The first four acts are the authority as we live out the fifth act.

There’s so much that is beautiful about this model. It allows the biblical Story to be a story. It means that we have been given a real part to play in the drama - we can’t simply ‘look up’ what we should do, or copy the actions of people in the Bible. We have to use our God-given common sense and capacity for responsible choice. There is an element of choose-your-own adventure to the Christian life. And there is room for colourful variety and diversity, since there will be many ways of continuing the Story which may be equally appropriate and consistent.

But at the same time we live under the authority of the Story. By immersing ourselves in it we have to repeatedly humble ourselves and submit ourselves to God’s Story, and allow it to question our lives. Crucially, you can challenge my improvisation if it seems to be in discord with the first four acts, if it is not in harmony with the whole flow and direction and spirit of the Story.

From where I’m standing, it seems like genius. This is how I understand the authority of Scripture. It assumes of course that the majority of people are wrong when they expect the Bible to be like a Drill Sergeant who wakes them at an ungodly hour shouting at them with commands they must urgently and perfectly fulfill. But it fits with the shape of the text much better as it whispers in your ear late in the morning, "Once upon a time..."

Excelsior

Sorry. Wright has written two books on authority and touched on it in his historical works but it all began with a little lecture almost 20 years ago which you can read here.

BrianCalgary

The Bible to me is God revealing Himself to mankind. It also tells the story of how God and has intervened in teh affair of mankind.

It reveals the persons and character of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

My reaction was to coem to Christ based on the above and also the future plans for mankind.

The Holy Spirit then began His work in me in earnest.

For others the journey coule be quite opposite. God communicates with someone through the Spirit. Then scripture comes alive.

To answer youy query wicknight, either way works, different journey, same destination.