Podcast: Download (21.3MB)
Determining Biblical Authority
Introduction: I’m sure many of you have seen the attacks on the authority of the scripture. Satan’s first and primary attack on God has always been to challenge his words. It may have seen this in friends or family, material you have read, or it has been in a question in your mind. Whether you are acquainted with these teachings or not, it is important for you as a Christian to be aware of what is being taught so that you are not taken by surprise and also “know how to give an answer to everyone who asks…”
To set up the purpose of this lesson, let’s begin by revisiting the quotes that I gave you at the end of the last lesson.
“Our traditional approaches to scripture have likewise been challenged at the grass roots level through a number of concerns, such as divorce, drugs, AIDS, homosexuality, and women’s rights… The intuition has been that older approaches to hermeneutics do not help in getting closer to God and each other, nor do they help us sort out puzzling questions in regard to family breakdowns, divorce, and woman’s roles. So in some manner, interpretation of the scripture must be repositioned so as to provide more help … The most widely accepted view among certain front runners in Dallas, Fort Worth, Abilene, Nashville, San Antonio, and Searcy is that the scripture is not a constitution or code book, as envisioned by the old hermeneutic, but is a love letter from God” (Thomas Olbricht, 1989 Christian Scholars Conference, Pepperdine University.)
Ridiculing the basis for establishing authority by “command, example, and necessary inference,” specifically making the claim that such an approach to scripture is an innovation of the Restoration movement of the 19th and 20th centuries. “The second challenge is that the traditional hermeneutic of command, example, and necessary inference is not found in the Old and New Testament, but is grounded in the human history of Reformed theology, Scottish Common Sense philosophy and logic, and the nineteenth century American culture. It is not ‘divine’ hermeneutic insulated from the ‘chaos’ of history. If the idea of restoration theology is to remain viable…what should the hermeneutic be? This is the most serious challenge facing the tradition today. A failure to address this question means that the tradition is now dead, having rejected its purpose and goals.” [Michael Casey, The Battle Over Hermeneutics in the Stone-Campbell Movement]
What Is the Motive?
When you examine these quotes, the motive becomes quite obvious. In their minds, our culture has dramatically changed since the writing of the NT in the 1st century. We are struggling in a culture that have problems that dominate our society: divorce, drugs, disease, homosexuality, and women’s rights. Initially, let’s just point out two problems with this foundation:
The 1st century had all of those same sins, and they were a predominate part of their culture! To act like our sins are somehow “new” and therefore scripture did not address these problems, is to only appeal to folks who are unaware of both the Bible and the ancient culture.
The premise is that God’s word was never intended for all cultures, and therefore if God did not address the sins of future cultures, we can just determine for ourselves what God would have ruled on these issues.
To say the Bible is not a “constitution” or “code book” is prejudicial. It is an attempt to characterize those who desire to be careful to obey God as legalists who are concerned with “rules” without a relationship with God.
And then, to simply “decide” that making the NT is a “love letter from God,” somehow negates the principles and commands of the Lord doesn’t even fit Jesus’ own principle of loving God: “If you love me, keep my commandments.” And John said, “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected” (1 John 2:3-5).
Now let’s go from here and deal with the more serious accusation that “command, example, and necessary inference” is not biblical but rooted in “human history and common sense philosophy and logic.”
The Foundation of Our Relationship with God
God made a number of prophetic statements about how his people would respond to the Messiah when he came to establish his kingdom.
“And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.” (Deut. 30:6)
Deut. 30:11-14. Paul quotes this text in Romans 10 and makes this comment: “that is the word of faith that we proclaim.” In other words, hearing and doing the Lord’s commandments is what faith means.
Ezekiel 36:27 This is in the context of God “vindicating his holy name” which Israel had profaned. How is his name vindicated? By being careful to obey his commandments. To do otherwise is to profane his name. The study of God’s word is in itself a study of how to glorify and honor our Creator by learning his ways and thoughts and following them.
What is the “gospel” message? Isaiah 52:7, “Your God reigns!” Jesus has come as our King. Therefore he said, “All authority is given to me in heaven and on earth…teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you…” (Matt. 28:18).
Ephesians 1:20-23. Luke 6:46 “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I tell you?”
Jude 11: there are three different rebellious people identified in this text. In each case these people have the attitude that God should not be King and that there way is better.
Cain believed he could worship however he wanted. When he was rejected he did not repent or humble himself, he envied and committed murder and then complained about the consequences.
Balaam desired personal gain both in money and influence more than obeying God. In fact, he pretended to obey God, even verbally proclaiming he would obey God, but then followed his own personal desires.
Korah questioned and defied the roles God had given him and his family. “We are all holy!” he proclaimed. Therefore we can offer incense too; we can act as priests too! This is the second time in this book where God condemned those who do not “stay in their own position of authority” (6).
The Biblical Approach to Authority
When it comes to our approach to the Bible and deciding on how to understand the authority of God, there is one question we must first ask ourselves: “Am I wanting to do God’s will or do I want to follow my own will?” Isaiah 55:8-9 presents the issue before us. Will I give up my ways for his ways and my thoughts for his thoughts?
The scripture repeatedly (from Old to New) challenges us and reminds us that we can understand the will of the Lord. Eph. 5:17, “Therefore do not be foolish but understand what the will of the Lord is.” God has communicated with us in the same way we communicate to each other. We even use different genre’s just as God does (not a surprise since God created us).
Therefore, let’s just consider how communication works. There are three basic ways we communicate truths to another person:
We directly tell people what we want. In my marriage, there are times Teresa simply tells me directly what pleases her.
We show or demonstrate to others what we want and how we like it done. More often than direct statements from Teresa, I learn what pleases her by watching what she does and how she does it. When I see her pampering her flowers, I know she loves her flowers. Therefore, when she is gone, I try to remember to water her flowers.
We draw conclusions about what people want by what they say or show. In the above example, I drew a conclusion about watering Teresa’s flowers even without her asking. We use implications and draw unstated conclusions all the time. It would be impossible to live without drawing conclusions from facts given (Matt. 22:41-44).
Here’s the key: it is impossible to communicate without using at least one of the three of these approaches. If a person disagrees with that, ask them to express their disagreement without using one of these three methods of communication.
Acts 10: Learning from God’s communication to Peter concerning Cornelius and the Gentiles:
10:9-16 God showed Peter a vision about animals and told him to not call anything he has cleansed common or unclean. Thus, Peter was shown something (28).
10:19-20 Three Gentile men showed up at Peter’s gate and the Holy Spirit told Peter to accompany them without doubting/hesitation. Thus, Peter was directly told something.
10:28-29 Peter drew a conclusion from the facts given. His conclusion was never directly stated by the Lord, but it was as true as if God had directly said it.
10:44-48 After Peter preached and the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles, Peter drew a final conclusion or inference: “Can any man forbid water…?” God did not command Peter to baptized Gentiles, but it was true and necessary conclusion from the facts given.
Therefore, what are we seeing? This is only one of hundreds of examples of how God communicated his will. It would be impossible to read and understand the Bible without seeing God telling us, showing us, and expecting us to infer truths from what he has told us and shown us.
Conclusion: People who try to deny this communication principle, are denying what is logically self-evident. It is also obvious that their motive is to find away to ignore biblical texts that are counter to our present culture and therefore uncomfortable to accept.
Berry Kercheville