Who gets the final say?

[Michael37]

5 hours ago, lftc said:

Who gets the final say on issues of understanding scriptures?

I do. Of course I respect other people's views and opinions, including those in commentaries and various resources, but ultimately I decide what I believe or don't. Whether or not others agree with me is immaterial, but fortunately one of the basic truths of our ekklesia is that agreement between everyone on everything all the time is not possible. 

Do you agree?

[Willa]

I pray about it first.  Then I believe that scripture interprets scripture, so I check cross references or my Thompson Chain Reference.  Finally I check several commentaries to see of others came to the same conclusions I did.  Not all of my ideas are set in concrete. It is important to remain teachable and to be willing to adapt to accommodate other verses in God's word that I had not previously considered.   

[Neighbor]

21 hours ago, lftc said:

Again the question:
Who gets the final say on issues of understanding scriptures?
Do you refer to other authorities and how do you decide who to quote?

 

There may not be any final interpretation for the word of God the Bible contains such a depth that one may not fully "fathom"  it's bottom. One may cast line from the bow to check the waters ahead and never hit bottom to record it , but one can find it deep enough for safe voyage from port to port.

The acrostic Psalm 119 may contain message upon message upon message that can be studied for years and still the numerics of it alone will lead to more study of additional scripture. The depth of it is perhaps infinite.

Of course I refer to scholars, men and women blessed with the gift from God the Holy Spirit and enabled to spend the time to do study that I do not have for my gift is to do other things that take my own time. Yesterday I picked up  old copies of Matthew Henry's Commentary and  Halley's Bible handbook plus another Strong's. I use the scholarship of many individuals from Kreloff, MacArthur, Piper, Boyce, Spurgeon, Criswell, Levitt and others, all of whom have been blessed with a gift of learning and sharing. Many are scholars, those with the language skills  needed to understand and then transliterate, so that I may have some better understanding too. 

[lftc]

Thanks very much to all for the very thoughtful and honest explanations of how you decide about these issues.  I found things I liked in each response.   Also, of course, I found things I was not quite sure of, either my understanding of the concept that was being communicated, or whether I could assent to that concept.  But that is just me.

This may be a surprise to all of you (sarcasm), but I am not the one in charge.  Why I say that is to ensure that any thing I write here is not taken as if I thought I was in charge.  I can fail quite well at managing my own life, I certainly do not need to fail at managing yours.

Reading through the responses, I have some thoughts to offer.  Some more common responses are that "God has the final say".  While that seems intuitive, and also intrinsic in the question, I see it as a good component of the fabric of the thought process one must undertake to arrive at an answer.  I mean that surely God must be held as Supreme, if I am setting out to be a Christian.  So that is a good point to add, if one was to build a "decision model":  God is Supreme.  Hebrews 11:6 says that in addition to that, we add: God rewards those who seek him.

Several people mentioned that they use the Spirit as their ultimate decision making tool.  I certainly think that is true, especially given that the Spirit is God and God Rewards.  It does beg the question of how one hears from the Spirit.  Which again, is really getting to the essence of what I asked in the Original Post.  I am sure some would state that they hear from the Spirit in their spirit or mind or heart.  Such as getting an impression.  Others here may attack that as being an opening for error, but I submit that at some point, we all have to trust an impression.  "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen".  So I certainly have no disregard for those who rely on hearing from God.  Assumption is a part of every human logic construct.  As Solomon said quite eloquently: "Even though a man says he knows, he cannot know".  One day we will... soon I hope.

But while we wait, we must struggle with this issue and many others.  So while we get to the point in our decision making process where we must make an assumption, (Faith), we have these techniques of deciding how to understand, how to form a concept, about what the scriptures say.  So that was really the basic question in the Original Post.

I will respond to everyone's posts here:

15 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

... Thus we arrive at a world view and like ALL dogmas and doctrines, they are a work in progress and change frequently. My world-view is, I hope, centering on God, His Council of heavenly beings and His aims, goals and progress towards His already stated objectives. ... using Yeshua as a daily example of how to conduct myself. ...
To answer the OP, God gets the final say.

Thanks Justin.  I certainly agree with you that the world-view plays a very key role in choosing what decisions are made about truth.  And it is very insightful to understand that world-view; over the years, I have found that there are many things contained in my world-view that are not from the scriptures.  Such things are very difficult to even recognize (naturally) and often very hard to work around.  With some world-view components, one can't just simply change your thinking: it is built in, and feels very wrong to go against the built-in world-view.   A long journey...
But, again, I agree with you that world-view is key here.

15 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

For myself, when I find something that could become a quandary, I like to check as many reliable commentaries on the subject as required to better understand the issue, but rely on Faith that God will lead me to the correct answer. He usually does and on the occasions that He doesn't I just figure that He feels it's not necessary for me to have that answer at this point, so no worries when I don't know or can't figure out a thing.  

Hi unworthyservant,  I certainly understand that approach.  For many years I made extensive use of commentaries and certainly "there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors" as Solomon said.  Some of the commentaries have great insights that may not be apparent to the scripture reader.  And I think that as a person journeys through this world the commentaries can help us as we see the basic human condition even reflected in the commentaries:  they certainly do not always agree with each other (as you observed).  In that situation, you stated that you determine that God does not want you to address that point.   Of course, I cannot fault that approach.  I do not speak for God into your life. (You and I both are glad for that).   I suppose I would be interested if you run into situations where the quandary you are facing is important enough that you feel urgency in resolving it. 

15 hours ago, Pekoudah said:

The authority rests with the witness of the Spirit. In the early church signs and wonders accompanied the truth. These signs are still there but have been attenuated so that only the careful can perceive them.

Jesus said.."My sheep know My voice"  So then the inner witness of Christ in us will tell us which way to go and what is of Him or not. If we don't have that inner witness of the truth...then there is really no other way other than observe the fruit of the person speaking.

Thanks, Pekoudah.  As to "observing the fruit", I certainly know of scripture references that tells us to observe the fruit, so I agree.  And I assume that the "fruit" means the "fruit of the spirit": Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control, against...    However, I am not sure that that applies to some questions, and certainly you can only observe the fruit of those with whom you have direct frequent contact.   We live in the age of mass media, which lies, literally everyone agrees about that.  So I can't trust that anything good or bad that is said about someone through modern communication is true.  Especially in something as huge as judging someone's fruit. I am afraid of my own sin, and gossip is an abomination to God, so I don't want to add gossip to my work-in-progress list.  So, it is impossible for me to rate somebody's fruit without some direct contact. 
But I also feel that I should not evaluate some questions based on the source's fruit.  As an absurd example (purposely absurd so that I don't incite a theology debate), when Satan acknowedges the existence of God, I do not throw that opinion out because Satan exhibits little fruit.  I hope that it is not insulting to use such an absurd example.  I just want to illustrate that some questions are not related to the character of a potential source.  It is some other decision technique that could be used. 
You already made the decision about God's existence, and about following Jesus, based on faith, which is what you identified as your primary technique for determining scriptural truth.   And I think that deciding to follow Jesus is completely the right thing to do.  I pray that God speaks to you clearly - and to me. 

 

15 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

...It also meant that I was a proof text addict.  I looked to the tiniest detail to determine what God was saying.   I tended to evaluate teachers and others by the same sort of standards.  I saw the purpose of Bible study to arrive at a clear systematic understanding of God's truth.

Now, my view of scripture is that if God thinks something is important He will say it over and over again very clearly.  If something only shows up in one or two places and is somewhat ambiguous, there is probably nothing critical hidden in there.   Those things that are very clear and that pretty much every Christian agrees on are likely the essential things all Christians should believe.  Those things that are less clear and many Christians disagree over are probably not essentials.   I now see the purpose of Bible study as to learn more about God.

...  The non-essentials are the things that get debated.

So, bottom line is that I look to many Christians with a wide range of viewpoints whose maturity, wisdom, and spiritual life I most respect.  On points where they all tend to agree, I have more confidence in those points.  On points where there is a range of opinion, I may or may not hold a tentative opinion, but I try not to let that point affect my relationship with anyone.

Greetings, GandalfTheWise.   Thank you for sharing your journey.  Well written and clearly shows us where you are at and how you got there.  For those reading this without reading his post, note that the quote above has been reduced substantially from his original post. You really should read the original.

Your post prompted a couple comments and questions.  Overall I agree that there are some things that are common to all Jesus church (I think Jesus defines that when he says "On this rock I will build my church").  Naturally, we humans immediately ran into divergent points (I believe Acts purposely illustrates this).  And I agree that we must behave in Love towards each other (John 15, etc, etc, etc).  And Love is the most defined of the big three Faith, Hope and Love. So I agree with you in regards to interacting with other believers.  I love where you have arrived at this point in your journey,  that you are guided by love. 

But there are matters of importance to you or others whose lives you effect that have apparent ambiguity.  In such matters how do you decide?  While such matters may best be left alone in some group discussions, are the scriptures not there by design and containing meaning?  As some issues cause severe difficulty in peoples lives, would not such people possibly benefit from your ability to understand?  I realize that that easily goes too far, and brings division, but in the right context it can bring light and love.  So when you have a topic that is ambiguous, and a need to understand, what approach do you take to dis-ambiguate?

16 hours ago, Jayne said:

... Hard scriptures?  Pray to God to explain them to you.  Ask the Holy Spirit to bring understanding.

Second of all, other people I highly respect in terms of how they live they way they talk - bearing out scriptures in their own lives.  I like those people and enjoy it in my church when they have leadership positions in study classes.

Third, there are a few commentators I enjoy, but am adamant not to trust every jot and tittle that they say.  They, like me, are fallible.

There is not an organization authority  - now this is my own opinion - that has Biblical authority as a body politic over what the Bible means.

For example, I belong to a Southern Baptist Church.  But the Southern Baptist Convention, for me, has no authority to interpret scripture and tell SBC to teach as they say.

Thanks, Jayne!  Well written concise post.  Something I can't do - concise.  Sorry.

I used to look for the clear leaders, looking for traits in them that showed the appearance of Godliness.  But since then, I have learned what Godliness really is, so I don't do it the same way anymore.  But we all choose people as authority based on something, it would be good to be intentional about what that something is.

I really admire your stance as a Southern Baptist.  It can be hard to buck the positional authorities, as Luther did when he risked his life opposing the then leadership the long standing, very well documented authority of his day.  Like Jesus, first inviting then exposing the authority of his day.  And if you look in church history, you find a continuous chain of disagreement, emerging primacy of a particular logic school, and attempted suppression of the opposing views.  In the early church, in the Orthodox branches, inside the Roman Catholic Church, on the fringes of the Roman Catholic church empire,  in Luther's era, and continuing in all branches since.   It seems that it is an impossible cycle to break.  And truly it is difficult:  if a group believes that a certain view will decieve people into going to hell, should they not oppose that view?  If others view that first group's view as hurting people, should they not resist the first group?   Throughout history, people die, or worse are tortured physically and psycologically for years, because inevitably these groups end up with power executed through civil government.  And every theology group does it, from the atheists to the evangelicals.  Some more than others. 
So I admire your stance.  Let it stop with me. Me too.
But since I mentioned Luther, he has his famous statement limiting his sources: Sola Scriptura.  And the four other Solae statements less well known but generally agreed to by all christians with vastly varying understanding of what the concepts mean.

Again, thank you sister.

16 hours ago, Behold said:

... You drink MILK before you eat MEAT, ...A Christian has to start the same way, and if this is not completely understood in the very beginning of your Christian Life, then your Christian life will be scripturally upside down..So, to rightly divide the word of God means to FIRST understand that you have to do this CORRECTLY, understanding that there is a spiritual method to understanding the scriptures that has to be observed and followed....

Hi Behold.   Excellent points to bring up!  I really like "the Milk and the Meat",  "rightly dividing", and especially "Study to show thyself approved".

Readers - be aware that the quote above is much reduced.  Read the original post.

Your points about foundation are so important, in my view.  I see much of the conflict over scriptures rooted in assumptions that various groups make about which scripture controls the concept of another scripture.  Everyone must make assumptions.  And everyone thinks they are right.  Of course, if you thought you were wrong you would either shutup or form a different concept.  So it is not a fault to think you are right.  I believe it is a fault to beat other people up with your opinion, and the fault grows with the force used.

So, if I were to summarize your approach to quandary resolution, it is to carefully and thoughtfully decide which passages contain truths that shed light on other passages.   Is that a fair summary?

16 hours ago, missmuffet said:

God gets the final say. His word is in the Bible to be read literally for which He has intended. The words are not to be added or deleted. In the Bible God has given His instructions on how He wants us to serve Him.

Hi missmuffet.   I agree completely with the above statement.  Well said.  I think that principle can be said that the whole scriptures are applicable.  The whole thing is the context.  People wisely say that we should not take a passage out of context.  I agree, but it is a large task as the context is huge.   That is where the commentaries, wise counselors help, as they are a little ahead of the beginner on understanding the context and holding the concept(s) properly organzied in their respective heads.  But at some point in a person's journey you will leave various counselors behind for various reasons.
Thanks for bringing the context into focus.

 

Summary

So if I add up what I have learned/agreed on in the other posts:

- God Is Supreme
- God Rewards Seekers - He will speak - Spirit is trustworthy
- Counselors, direct contact and remote, play a role, but must have a rubric (logic structure) with which to evaulate them.  Their role is primarily to help with understanding the context of the whole of scripture.
- Positional Authority has a high hurdle to jump to qualify as a source - if force is involved the hurdle is too high
- Scripture Alone is claimed as the sole source by some (Protestant anyone?)
- Within the scriptures, determination must be made as to which passage(s) contain the primary message, there after using that passage to understand other passages.

 

 

Thanks to the others who posted after mismuffet, but I can't get their quotes into this post.

 

[lftc]

14 hours ago, Michael37 said:

I do. Of course I respect other people's views and opinions, including those in commentaries and various resources, but ultimately I decide what I believe or don't. Whether or not others agree with me is immaterial, but fortunately one of the basic truths of our ekklesia is that agreement between everyone on everything all the time is not possible. 

Do you agree?

Thanks, Michael37.   I believe that all of us hold that final authority view, at least from the decision making viewpoint.  So thank you for being honest.  I almost posted the HaHa icon, as i think you are being funny by asking if I agree immediately saying that agreement is not possible. 

I do.

Or I don't, as needed.

[lftc]

12 hours ago, Willa said:

I pray about it first.  Then I believe that scripture interprets scripture, so I check cross references or my Thompson Chain Reference.  Finally I check several commentaries to see of others came to the same conclusions I did.  Not all of my ideas are set in concrete. It is important to remain teachable and to be willing to adapt to accommodate other verses in God's word that I had not previously considered.   

ANd thanks to you sister Willa.  Well said.

[lftc]

5 hours ago, Neighbor said:

There may not be any final interpretation for the word of God the Bible contains such a depth that one may not fully "fathom"  it's bottom. One may cast line from the bow to check the waters ahead and never hit bottom to reord it , but one can find it deep enough for safe voyage from port to port.

The acrostic Psalm 119 may contain message upon message upon message that can be studied for years and still the numerics of it alone will lead to more study of additional scripture. The depth of it is perhaps infinite.

Of course I refer to scholars, men and women blessed with the gift from God the Holy Spirit and enabled to spend the time to do study that I do not have for my gift is to do other things that take my own time. Yesterday i picked up  old copies ofMatthew henry's Commentary and  Halley's Bible handbook plus another Strong's. I use the scholarship of many individuals from Kreloff, MacArthur, Piper, Boyce, Spurgeon, Criswell, Levitt and others, all of whom have been blessed with a gift of learning and sharing. Many are scholars, those with the language skills  needed to understand and then transliterate, so that I may have some better understanding too. 

Thanks Neighbor.  It just feels good to use your screen name like that. 

Above, in my too long post, I briefly pointed out my view of commentaries.  THey certainly have their useful role. As do the other forms of counselors.  And they have their risks as I'm sure you would agree.

You are a good Neighbor.

[JustPassingThru]

For me it's 1 John 2:27:

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

As has been stated above it is the witness of the Holy Spirit, when reading or listening to men that are teaching the Holy Spirit is witnessing to/in my heart either, "Yes, yes that's Me speaking," or "No, no I have never heard Jesus say that John 14:26, that is not me speaking."

Lord bless

[unworthyservant]

2 hours ago, lftc said:

(You and I both are glad for that)

And vice versa

[GandalfTheWise]

26 minutes ago, lftc said:

But there are matters of importance to you or others whose lives you effect that have apparent ambiguity.  In such matters how do you decide?  While such matters may best be left alone in some group discussions, are the scriptures not there by design and containing meaning?  As some issues cause severe difficulty in peoples lives, would not such people possibly benefit from your ability to understand?  I realize that that easily goes too far, and brings division, but in the right context it can bring light and love.  So when you have a topic that is ambiguous, and a need to understand, what approach do you take to dis-ambiguate?

Good question.  When it comes to things that are essentials (which is basically the short list of things pretty much all Christians agree on), I will plainly explain why I believe such to be true.  When it comes to non-essentials which is what constitutes the vast majority of Christian debates, I will as clearly as possible lay out the range of differences Christians have on the issues as well as push why holding one side or the other does not make them better than every other Christian.  It is my opinion that most ambiguities are simply the result of Christians being overzealous for trying to find new rules or beliefs in the Bible to better serve and follow God.  If they find something and are blessed by that, fine.  If they start to split the body of Christ over it, not so fine.

17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18 Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.  James 3:17-18 NIV

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.  Matt 5:9 NIV

I have spent many years in different church and ministries with different doctrinal views on many matters.  Some of those Christians I've known would have not been able to fellowship and minister in good conscience with other Christians I've known.  Many of the distinctive doctrines that particular groups hold usually don't affect anything one way or the other very much even though they are convinced it makes them better Christians.   When a church or ministry departs from essentials, there is usually an obvious and negative effect on them.  When a church or ministry holds a particular non-essential as being essential, it usually doesn't matter much except for the division and strife they cause and waste their time on with those Christians who disagree.  I don't think it's so much a matter of trying to resolve differences and ambiguities so much as identifying what is important and not worrying about the rest.  The bottom line is that there is NO authority on this earth that all Christians will accept in good conscience for resolving all questions and topics because each side insists that they have God's authority on their side.  My opinion is that our only option is to reduce strife and division as much as possible.

When it comes to resolving ambiguities (which are usually arguments over non-essentials), my main priority is as peacemaker rather than arbitrator or judge.  Much of the "need to understand" is really a desire to be proven right on an unimportant matter and to proselytize Christians from the wrong churches and ministries into the right ones.  Frankly, I just try to limit damage and try to get Christians to honestly look at each other and see each other through God's eyes rather than the filter of them being inferior (or perhaps not a Christian) because they believe something another Christian thinks is wrong.  Also, it is clear from scripture that ambiguities will exist.  For example, Romans 14 seems pretty clear that there are matters of ambiguity between Christians for which the prescription is acceptance and love.  The examples Paul gives regarding eating and observance of days were likely rooted in what those Christians believed to be prescribed from scripture.  Note that Paul doesn't attempt to resolve this by proving who is right but rather mediate how to be in harmony in spite of those disagreements.