While the bible is the ultimate, infallible rule of faith for the church, what kind of authority exactly do the church and tradition have in interpreting the bible? That is, if I appeal to what the church has historically taught in defense of an interpretation, am I committing the ad populum fallacy or appeal to tradition fallacy?

__________________
Chris
Independent Baptist
Michigan
Layman

I'm not sure what is behind this question. I'd give you the whole "the church's power is only ministerial" speech, but I don't think that's what you're after.

Would these inherently be fallacies, given that the church is Christ's and is led by the Spirit? Parts of our canon were included because, despite all the wrangling over them, they were actually being used in the churches. What about when major doctrines were decided, such as the Trinity, or the hypostatic union?

I don't think using the history of interpretation is inherently fallacious. However, it's not authoritative either. The only authoritative interpreter of scripture is scripture, illuminated, of course, by the Holy Spirit. But it would be foolish to disregard the church's corporate witness, since it is the church as church that the Holy Spirit leads. That's not to say that individuals do not have impact. We need only look at Luther for that. But Luther was not alone, and even he appealed to the history of interpretation.

Tradition is a guide. Even the reformers didn't cast it aside casually. But ultimately, the Spirit interprets scripture.

Does that help you? It's hard to know what you are after without details.

__________________
Clark Brooking
Pastor
Living Hope Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Clarksville, MD

Actually, it's still a bit confusing. You say "the church's power is only ministerial", and I take you to mean the administrative authority of the church.

So then, administrative authority aside, how the church has historically interpreted a verse may shed light on a verse and help us understand it, but the church's interpretation has no special epistemic authority.

I'm just wondering if it is okay to hold to what the church has historically taught by default and let the burden of refutation lie with those who disagree with it. But if the church doesn't have an authoritative interpretation of anything, then I can't claim a reasonable presumption in favor of what the church has historically taught.

The true "ministerial" (and declarative) power of the church is in contrast to the "magisterial" authority that some church bodies claim.

Whether it is the Roman denomination, or an independent baptist church--any church body that lays down "rules for the spiritual" that are not explicitly taught by (or deduced necessarily from) Scripture is asserting the right to bind conscience merely "by the authority vested in me..."

On the other hand, when the church teaches the Word of Christ, they do so with all the authority that Christ would have if he were the one physically present. Indeed, in the faithful deliverance of that Word, he IS present by his Spirit.

When the church "declares" that so-and-so is inside, or outside, the church through discipline, if it be the truth, then the deliverance is such as is already "bound or loosed in heaven." Men may make mistakes, and say the wrong thing (something that Rome denies she ever does, speaking authoritatively), but Heaven always gets it right.


We reject "implicit faith" in the Church, as though by such confidence men could be cleared of their failure to exercise the right (actually duty) to private judgment. "God told me not to worry about whether they were leading me over a cliff--they were in charge, he just told me to trust and obey... the Church." Wrong.

Jesus said, "My sheep hear my Voice, and they know me." Not, they should receive any dude with a shepherd's crook. We must obey God rather than men. Jesus said of the Pharisees, "they have the seat of Moses" (Mt.23:2ff) and he gives them a very qualified endorsement: "so practice and observe whatever they tell you--but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice."

In other words, they were not only to be obeyed, but to be judged by their followers. Neither their scandalous lives, nor their legalistic, punctilious observances of human traditions were to be credited.

Only what they preached respecting the Word of God was to be heeded. Jesus continued, v13, "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in."


I would say that one should only reject a widespread, generally believed doctrine after long and strenuous study and earnest prayer. Is this reluctance or difficulty I'm having a result of my own stubbornness and blindness? Am I really seeing truth where so many have failed to see it? Not being totally alone is usually good comfort.

But I'd say a significant amount of rejection of doctrine is little more than PRIDE. So few people are actually submissive when and where they ought to be. They aren't really submissive to Christ through the good teachers he has given to the church. But they dress up their rebellion in the dress "I'm just following what the Bible says."

But if he can't find a body of the faithful which can ever succeed in counseling him, and correcting him, then he's just a loose cannon, a lone ranger, a wandering sheep.


So, there's a balance that's required. God tells us we are going to lack full "epistemic certainty" in this life. That's why our faith must be first and last in him, and in "his precious and very great promises." This is another area where we must walk mainly by faith, and not by sight. Pray, "Lord, I trust you to give me the shepherds that will best care for me. And if I need to be elsewhere, then move me. You are my good Shepherd."

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

The difficulty is determining whether or not what the church teaches is actually scriptural.

So, the church doesn't have any authority (except ministerial), but I should accept its teachings over my own opinion (until I've studied it well). Why? If I should accept the interpretations of the church as a starting point, wouldn't the church become the default authority on biblical doctrines? If so, what kind of authority is this?

The reason I ask is because, as you know, there are many people out their with their own opinion on what this verse or that verse means. If the church is not an authority on the bible, then it seems everyone is justified in holding to his own private opinion on the meaning of the bible. That is, assuming they have at least some small reason for holding to their interpretation.

On the other hand, if we say the church has some authority in interpreting the bible, are we committing the ad populum fallacy?

(1) We cannot wait till the end of life to form our understanding of the interpretation of God's Word. While continually examining and reexamining our understanding of the Scriptures we must accept as a base line understanding of the whole what faithful men have learned over the centuries.

(2) Once we have restudied a passage and believe that we have rightly interpreted it, there is a safeguard in consulting trusted teachers of the past to see if we may have erred badly and need to restudy it in the light that they shed on the particular point.

__________________
Bob, elder, RBC Louisville. 1689 LBCF

"... Of such also, or of those who make a credible profession of being such, all those particular churches consist, which constitute our Lord's visible kingdom. ... Consequently, all the subjects of His government must have spiritual dispositions, , and yield spiritual obedience- obedience proceeding from an enlightened understanding, an awakened conscience, and a renewed heart."- Abraham Booth 1788

Your missing one important aspect here of reformed theology- confessing. Churches have long time-tested doctrinal statements that are held in good faith to summarize the doctrine of Holy Scripture. So, it is not as if "one person's opinion is as good as another."

Also, when you look at the high qualifications for those who teach God's Word (e.g. I Timothy 3, Titus I) its not as if their supernatural gifting makes them the same as good as any interpretation. Of course, they are not infallible.

I'm not sure if you are intended to analogize the Roman system in this, but if so, another thing to consider is that, officially, at least, it does not hold that the Scripture is final authority.

Think of that- it would be as if God was not making His Word comprehensible by His creatures who He commands to obey Him. But God did make it understandable, as a whole (the doctrine of perspicuity). Many Scriptures promise that God will help us understand His Word if we study it. Don't let those promises get lost in the mix here.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23