« Roving Defender of Evolution, and of Room for God | Main | The best advice I ever got »

May 01, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I was intrigued by the idea that "the Church does not give the books of scripture their authority. Rather the church surrenders to the authority of scripture."

I wonder how that idea engages the Church, today. Do we, also, get to choose to surrender to the authority of scripture? Or was that only done 1,800 years ago?

I think the former presents the most compelling case. If we are only deferring to the decisions make 1,800 years ago, aren't we really engaged in ancestor worship?

On the other hand, if we are responsible in our day for discerning the authenticity of scripture, how do we engage that task? And what do we do if we sense an inauthentic presentation?

Michael W. Kruse

Daivd, I think the key issues is apostolic endorsement. Finding widespread authority in a passage is not sufficient.

I think it is possible to conceive of books that had apostolic endorsement but were without widespread use among the community. It is possible to conceive of books that have widespread authority within the Church but not apostolic endorsement.

I don’t know that it is so much ancestor worship as it is finding higher authority in Jesus' teachings and in the authority of those who learned from Jesus' mouth to their own ears.

I think the never ending challenge is discerning in what way this scriptural authority works in the life in the Church in any given context. Starting Monday, I’ll be reviewing seven ways that Bailey believes are errors in using scripture. I think that when sense "inauthentic presentation" that maybe we should push back on our wether or not we have understood scripture correctly within its context.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Calmly Considered: Videocasts on Faith & Economics

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Kruse Kronicle on Kindle

Check It Out