Are some verses more authoritative than others?

If it is inspired or directed by Jesus, then it is written by Jesus' authority. The liberals tried to pit Jesus against the rest of the Bible, and they failed, Praise the Lord.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Yes and no, the King can decree Authority and allow others to speak on his behalf. Does that mean they would in all cases say exactly what the King would have said???? Yet the King stands behind them.

Again, Apostolic Authority is not one that I suscribe to... Paul was taught by Christ via revelation so I have no reason to think his Epestiles would be any different.

Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

All Scripture is God Breathed, and therefore given by the inspiration and authority of God. Everything written in the Bible is exactly as God meant for it to be.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I gree with your statement but let me continue to play devils advocate.

You recite Pauls second letter to Timothy which was written around 60 to 70 AD. When he wrote that letter, there are some who believe scripture at that time meant the old testament. This would be the Jewish definition of scripture as Christians had yet to or had recently began to record their teachings for historical purposes and not for biblical reasons.

It was later, because of other Churches that had been started, other Gospels that had been written that it was decided to cannonize or place an oficial seal to what we now know as the Bible.

So when Pauls says all scripture, was he just referring to OT or was he also referring to letters like Johns which would not be written for another 30 or so years? What proof do you have for your answer?

 

I addressed this issue earlier in another thread. I will have to find it so I can link it. But briefly, when Paul wrote to Timothy about Scripture, he also made mention of the New Testament as well.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Here is the link.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Not exactly Joseph, but let me inject my two farthings. Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scriptures.

Ed.

 

The question contains the word "authoritative". That presents a problem. If it is interpreted to mean "command," or "obligation," or "binding," then obviously some verses contain those, and some do not. If the word implies "trustworthy," or "inerrant," then that applies to all verses. If it means that all verses have the stamp (the authority) of God, then they are all equal. Genesis 1:1 is informational, but not in the category of a command, or an obligation that we must read and adhere to. If you intended only the writings in the New Testament, then all are equally trustworthy. Jesus, Peter, and Paul spoke with authority, but every word that they spoke did not carry with it a command. As to what scriptures were in circulation, it is a common error to assume that they only had access to the Old Testament. I've heard a long list of SBC pastors and deacons make that error.

 

LeBuick said:

You are saying the epestiles were written via Jesus Authority. Is this different from being inspired or directed by Jesus? When Man does anything (even for God), do you believe he puts a bit of himself in their also?

It means that when Jesus ascended to heaven, he passed on his authority to his disciples (Matt. 28:18-20), and they used it to build up the church (2 Cor. 13:10). This authority included passing on the teachings of Jesus through their written letters and Gospels.

 

Ed,

I did not write the quote that you quoted. That was Lebuick.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I don't think this is what is meant by "authoritative." I think it is referring to the fact that all scripture has the authority of God behind it - that is, it all comes from God, which is what I believe. Scripture is authoritative in the sense that it is the standard by which we judge and decide doctrine, behavior, church issues, etc.

 

Yes, all scripture is useful and informative for interpreting other scripture, but all scripture, especially the epistles of the New Testament need to be interpreted in the specific context of the life and teachings of Jesus.

*Bzzz*

Nope, but thank you for playing.

It is actually a sound biblical interpretive method based on the New Testament and common sense.

I’ll give you that. SBC leaders have been very successful misrepresenting the position.

I don’t know the true motivations of the SBC committee that rewrote the BF&M in 2000, but that fact that some "liberals" have misused this method I recommend does not negate its biblical validity.

In my opinion, the SBC leadership overreacted and took a position that undermines the spiritual authority of Jesus as a teacher.

If you think I am advocating the so-called “Red Letter” Christianity, you have somehow managed to miss that I covered the standard “pitting Jesus against Paul” charge in my first post on this thread. I’m not sure if it is worth my time to present my position if you are going to ignore what I write and just make wild accusations. But I’ll give it a shot…

Here is a brief sketch of my understand of the scripture in regard to this issue:

1.) Jesus is the highest and fullest expression of God to humankind. (Hebrews 1:1-3)

2.) Christ is the cornerstone (that is, the One Who defines the position and orientation) of the household of faith, the holy temple built together spiritually as a dwelling place for God. (Ephesians 2:20-21)

3.) Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) Who is the Head of the body, the church. (Colossians 1:17-18)

4.) Jesus identified Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6), and those who enter into His life will obey His teachings (Matthew 7:17-27) and will do the works that Jesus did. (John 14:12-15)

5.) The purpose of the church is to make disciples of all people, teaching them to obey the teachings of Jesus. (Matthew 28:19-20)

6.) Based on the previous five points (as well as many other scriptures I could cite), we know that Jesus is a trustworthy Leader, Teacher and Master.

7.) The New Testament writers were all disciples and servants of Jesus – Paul was a disciple/servant/apostle (Acts 9-28; Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Phillipians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1; Titus 1:1; Philemon 1). James was a servant of Jesus (James 1:1). Peter was an apostle/servant of Jesus (All four gospels; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1). John was a disciple of Jesus (All four gospels; 1 John 1:1-4; Revelation 1:1-2).

8.) Jesus said, “A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master” (see Matthew 10:24-25a).

9.) All of these New Testament writers had entered into the life of Christ and were living as His mature disciples. They were all ministering out of the riches of their life in Christ as they were led by the Holy Spirit, providing practical insight into the principles of Christ’s teaching and building upon the teaching foundation laid by Christ (the chief cornerstone).

10.) Outside of the gospels, which were written for both believers (Luke 1:4) and unbelievers (John 20:31), the epistles of the New Testament, Acts, and Revelation were all written to the church – a group of believers who were already familiar with the teachings of Jesus and were actively growing in discipleship to Christ.

11.) Therefore all interpretation of the New Testament writings must take into account the life and teachings of Jesus which was the foundation of the apostolic teaching. If you don’t first start with the life and teachings of Jesus as your theological cornerstone (your interpretive guide), they you are very likely to misinterpret the teachings of Paul and the other New Testament writers according to your personal biases and experience. Furthermore, if you are not actively following Christ in discipleship, learning to live life as He did, taking you spiritual nourishment from His teachings and following His guidance through the Holy Spirit, you are very likely to mishandle scripture.

So what is "liberal" and "heretical" about this position?

And please, if you want me to clarify a point or give addition scripture, please just say so instead of launching an attack. We can all act like Christian grown-ups, can't we?

 

All Scripture is inspired by Christ, and is therefore, the teachings of Christ. All Scripture, further, points to Christ and his grace and redemptive work on the cross, which makes the change in the statement true. Christ is the focus of divine revelation through the whole Word of God. One can therefore, look throughout the entire Bible and find the life of Christ and his teachings being revealed since Christ is God.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Let me clarify what I mean by the “life and teachings of Christ”:

1.) It is no accident that I have mentioned both the life and teachings of Christ. What Jesus did, how He dealt with people, and how He responded to questions tells us quite a bit about God that was not revealed in other parts of scripture. As I mentioned previously, scripture teaches that the incarnation of Jesus revealed God in a more complete way than through, for instance, the writings of Moses or David. That’s what Hebrews 1:1-3 is about. That’s what Colossians 1:15 is about. By collapsing all of scripture into the “authored by Jesus” category, you’re ignoring a very clear scriptural teaching about the importance of the incarnation!

2.) When I mention the “life and teachings of Christ,” I am referring to His teaching that is recorded in the gospels that reveal the Kingdom life that is available to all who will follow Him in discipleship.

Although the statement is still true, it is much less correct and helpful.

Yes, all of scripture points to Christ, so why do you have a problem with using the clearest expression of Christ recorded in the gospels as the interpretive guideline for all of scripture? The point you are trying to make actually cuts against your argument and supports my position!

Yes, so that’s why it is helpful and instructive to use the clearest record of Christ’s teachings to ensure that we are properly interpreting the rest of scripture.

 

I was answering LeBuick, although he had, I believe, addressed you.

I was saying that I was not you, but was injecting a response. Sorry for any confusion.

Ed

 

Grace and Peace Joseph Botwinick,

I don't want to jump in this wonderful discussion and bruse and egos but I would agree with BaptistBeliever's point here.

Many Jews failed to see Christ in the Old Testament and thus missed the coming of the Messiah. It would be my argument that part of the truth revealed by the Holy Spirit is a truthfilled exegesis for the rightly discerned understanding of Scripture.

Part of the truthfilled exegesis can be found in the words of the Apostles who were rightly guided by Jesus Christ Himself and the descending of the Holy Spirit upon them. The Gospels of our Lord and Saviour reveal a lot to us and we should reflect on the Life and Teachings of Christ.

Is this making any sense?

Peace and God Bless.

 

Since Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old covenant, and is the Son of God, then his words should be the interpretive filter for the rest of scripture. I believe the old Baptist faith and message stated that Jesus was the "criterion" for interpreting scripture.

Taking passages of scripture without this interpretive standard leads to error in doctrine. See Matthew 5:17 as the key.

 

But the life and teachings of Christ were recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I see an irony here in that you seem to put the life and teachings of Christ above other scripture, yet what is written about what Jesus said and did is by men, just like the rest of the NT (albeit under the inspiration of the HS). All of what is written in the Gospels and NT (and OT) is inspired by the same Holy Spirit and there is no conflict in seeing all scripture as equally valid.

Is anyone here arguing that there is a higher authority in the Gospel writings than in other books of the NT? If so, give an example of a conflict where you would take something in the Gospels over another book of the NT. How do you apply this view that Jesus' teachings and life as recorded in the 4 Gospels has more authority?

 

Marcia, that is great question - how is this interpretive system fleshed out exactly? I keep hearing that those who don't use this system create bad doctrine, so what exactly are those bad doctrines that people not using this system come up with?