Monday, July 20

Paul's authority

Here is an excerpt from a sermon by John Macarthur. He's talking about Paul's authority and therefore the scripture's authority. There are a couple of links at the bottom.So Paul says, "I'm a divinely appointed apostle." Now, I want to just take a minute, because I think this is so extremely important. I hope you realize that the message of the apostles is the inspired Word of God as we have it in the New Testament, and that we are to be subject and submissive to the word of the apostles. They are the authority that speak in the behalf of Jesus Christ. And this is extremely important.

I met a man at that conference at Forest Home who said to me, after I had spoken about the apostle Paul and given some information about the things that Paul said regarding sin, he said, "Well," he said, "of course, you have to remember that not everything Paul said is relevant." And he said, "Of course," he says, "I just don't buy everything he said." Well, at that point, you see, you're doing exactly what the false teachers did in Galatia. You're stating that Paul has no right to speak authoritatively. And Paul says, "Wait a minute. I'm an apostle. I have been commissioned to speak authoritatively for Christ. These aren't my words. They're his."

So Paul insists, then, that he has credentials to speak because he is an apostle by title, and his apostleship was not conferred humanly, but it was conferred by God through Christ. The very God who raised Jesus from the dead gave him his right to speak. He is no secondhand apostle. In Galatians 1:11, look what he says. "I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." He's saying, "What I'm telling you no one ever taught me. I got it straight from Christ Himself." And that, beloved, is what an apostle is.

And so Paul states his authority through his title and through the manner in which he was chosen. Thirdly, he states his authority through his association. He says, "And all the brethren who are with me, unto the churches of Galatia." And this is kind of an inference rather than a direct statement. But you'll notice, while calling himself an apostle, he calls the rest of those with him brethren. He's distinguishing himself clearly from the others.

He is happy to associate with them. He unashamedly adds them to the list to...really, he says, "They're writing along with me. They agree with what I'm going to say." But at the same time he gives himself the title apostle and gives them the title brothers, showing that there is a great difference. Now, let me say that this is so very important, people. There is a tremendous difference between the brethren and the apostles. I hope you understand that.

So Paul establishes his authority as an apostle. Let me add a footnote, because I think it's important. The modern radical theologian, like would be illustrated by the young man that I mentioned, who said that you don't always believe what Paul said. This man says this, and you need to watch this. The radical modern theologian says that the apostles were just, now watch it, they were just first century witnesses to Jesus Christ. And they wrote what they thought as they witnessed the Christ event.

We are 20th century witnesses, and our witness of Christ as we look at Him active in the world today and as we look over history in the past, our witness is just as good, and some say it's better, because we have more information. In other words, they are equalizing us with the apostles. C.H. Dodd, who has done some very serious and helpful writing in many areas of Biblical commentary, says this, "Sometimes I think Paul is wrong, and I have ventured to say so." Now, that is a typical radical modern liberal view, that the apostles were just witnesses. They wrote their own thoughts. And you and I are witnesses of the Christ event. We can write what we want. So the Bible may or may not be that significant.

But Paul would deny that with every breath in his body. He was called of God, not by man or men, by Jesus Christ, God the Father, and he is set apart from the brethren in the churches. He is not what they are. He is an apostle. He is a special messenger, chosen by God. And what the apostles said was what Christ really wanted to be said through them.

In John 13:20, talking about these disciples and apostles, Jesus said, listen to this tremendous statement, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me. And he that receiveth me receiveth Him that sent me." He says, "I'm going to send you out, and whoever receives you is receiving me. You go in my place." In John 14:26, He said to the apostles, "The Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, shall teach you all things, bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said unto you." Did you get that?

A lot of people want to apply that verse to all the Christians who live today. Well, you could in a secondary and a very general sense, but that verse was meant for the apostles. "He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said unto you," means, "I'll give you the information you need to write the New Testament. They had a very special and a very unique place. And so we reject the radical, modern, liberal view that they're just a few guys who had an opportunity to see these things, they wrote what they thought and our testimony is just as good.

Another interesting view is the Catholic view. The Catholic theologian says that the church wrote the Bible, and that these guys were just officials of the church. And you know what's so significant about that? They say the church wrote the Bible, and these guys were just officials of the church, which means that the church, any time it wants, can add to the Bible. And that's why, in the Catholic church, tradition is equal to Scripture. Because, since the church wrote the Bible, anything the church wants to say can be added to the Bible.

It doesn't say Paul was an apostle of the church. Paul was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. They received their authority not from the organization but from God Himself. It's divine. It's not ecclesiastical and it's not human. It's divine. It was God who accredited him. Now, listen, beloved, we find something very important here, and that is this. It is the question of Biblical authority. Our lives are to be subject to Jesus Christ as He speaks through His apostles. And what He says through Paul is really authoritative as if Jesus said it.

I remember a man who was really a strange kind of a guy. And he was the same guy that I think I told you about, sold everything and got ready for the Lord to come in a certain year. And he always carried a red-letter Bible. And I don't like red-letter Bibles. In fact, I don't like them at all. But anyway, he always carried red-letter Bibles. You know why I don't like a red-letter Bible? Why do you think that what Jesus said is any more important than what Paul said? Why should that be in red? Every bit of it was written by God Himself. Well, this guy said to me, he said, "I only believe the part in red." That's exactly what he said.

Listen, the part in black, written by Paul or Peter or James or John or Jude or the writer of Hebrews, that is just as important as if Jesus said it. Why? Because He did say it, through them. Biblical authority, our lives are to be subject to Jesus Christ speaking through His apostles. The proper authority is not vested in human opinion. It's not even vested in the consensus of the church. It's vested in apostolic authority. And when the early church got together, they studied the apostles' doctrine. You know, I make no apology for believing everything Paul said. I make no apology. Paul does not write as one commissioned by the church. He speaks for Jesus Christ. So his authority is established.
Here's the transcript of the entire sermon, and here's the audio link.

12 comments:

Traever Guingrich said...

so paul uses the title apostle to confirm his authority...but let's say one uses the adjective form of that word (apostolic)...that means they have just as much authority as him right? they would have no need to validate from scripture their faith, practice, traditions, or doctrine right? they could simply stand on their own authority?
not that anyone would ever do that or anything, it's purely hypothetical.

Nick said...

"They say the church wrote the Bible, and these guys were just officials of the church, which means that the church, any time it wants, can add to the Bible."

Umm...that's certainly a wrong view, but it's not a Catholic one.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PK.HTM

I'm with him on the red-letter Bibles stuff. It implies levels of truth and scripture-ness. Ugly theology. At the same time, I might hazard that people tend to look for those 'nuggets of truth' in Scripture because they're not sure what do with a number of OT passages, that don't feel as meaningful to them. Just a guess.

Traever, I agree. It's almost as bad as those who would dare label themselves 'Christians', acting as though they had the same authority as the Son of God.

Traever Guingrich said...

yeah, him saying that they claim they wrote the bible is a little bit of a mis-characterization, or at least hyperbole. it's more that they claim they decided what would be in the bible because they have the authority to do so. and they say they did it infallibly. i agree with sproul when he says it's a fallible collection of infallible books, but one that he has more confidence is correct than any other church counsel decision. as in there exists the possibility that the church erred in it's assembling together of the bible. the catholic church however says that is not the case.

Nick said...

For moderns, I think the Catholic position sometimes has more to do with providing some kind of epistemology (ie How can we fallibly declare or recognize something infallible?). Though historically, they simply wouldn't have seen the church as being opposed to or other than the apostles, and would've looked to certain understandings of apostolic succession. Then again, if the given office-holder would oppose the apostles, then they wouldn't have been acting as apostolic representatives anyway. So if a bishop doesn't act like a bishop should, he's not acting as a bishop, thus allowing the office to retain the honor of authority.

The idea, I think, is related to how Augustine dealt with the validity of the sacraments performed by heretics. Though I think Chesterton's point applies as well; that we mustn't judge a thing by its abuses.

This isn't to say that any of this stuff is right. That's just my impression of what they're saying.

Oh, and Traever, I must apologize for the unnecessary snark in my last comment. My desire to show that the adjectives do not imply equality in and of itself, but a guide towards conformation gave way to the general feeling of annoyance I had at the time.

Nick said...

...and by annoyance, I meant that it had been a long day with very little sleep.

Traever Guingrich said...

no big deal. i wasn't actually saying they use the word like that i was just making a segway to the attitude we've experienced from much of leadership. essentially they'll defend their authority till they are blue in the face without ever once being willing to address the actual issue of what they are doing with that authority. it's been incredibly frustrating by revealing as well.

Nick said...

Funny, as I tend to notice those attitudes more in the pews than the pulpit...and even more so in myself. It's easy to think that what I think defines the boundaries of truth. It's even easier to think that I must understand a thing before I can recognize it as truth. Like you said, we too much stand on our own authority.

Traever Guingrich said...

we have one authority- scripture. it's not always difficult to see when it's being twisted, misused, and ignored. such is the case in regards to legalism, church government, church discipline, and soteriology (in the ac church). for example, the biblical model for church discipline is not that complicated. when a church refuses to submit itself to that model, it's wrong. scripture is supposed to be the only authority in which they derive their right to discipline.
the same can be said of the catholic church with their mariology, forced celibacy, priestly absolution, mass and all kinds of other doctrines. it's clearly not scriptural and it doesn't take a genius or a theology professor to see it. acknowledging and being against that kind of distortion of the word is not an arrogant or unbiblical attitude on behalf of "those in the pews". in fact, it's part of their job.

Traever Guingrich said...

all in all, i don't think we could honestly say that the problems people have in those areas (especially the ac ones) come from a wrong attitude or their misunderstanding of a truth. what would one need to understand better in regards to church discipline that makes it biblical to punish a repentant sinner? same goes for plurality of elders. no one's attitude is making the bible "seem" to teach it, that's just what the new testament calls for in church government. again, it doesn't take a scholar.

Nick said...

Since I'm not sure what you're getting at (tradition, authority, scripture, our problems, problems of leadership, etc), let me mention some of the reflections I had while reading your comments. If this discussion is getting too long, tedious, or distanced from the blog post feel free to email me instead.

1. Who discerns?
Most important, in my mind, is where you point out that part of the job of the congregants is to discern and oppose any distortions of the word that occur in the preaching. This is fantastic stuff! I can only add that the church leaders have this role as well, in addition to the responsibility of doing so on behalf of the church (at least when acting in their official capacity).

My apologies if I implied that the congregation is the sole source of any problems we may have. I didn't in any way mean to imply that. My point was simply that those who I have heard point to tradition in an escapist way (trying to elude any need to be loyal to the consequences of scripture, any need to think about what a passage means, and even the mere possibility that they could be wrong) have far more often not been in leadership positions. This may be coincidence or a consequence of certain church cultures, but that has been my experience. I wasn't trying to place blame.

2. How do they discern?
Any confusion resulting from such a process can, at times, be linked to the different ways that we comprehend the word. As you said, there are often times when there is no disagreement as to the meaning of a passage (at least within a particular group). One would hope that in these situations everyone involved would be willing to man up and live out the implications of recognizing that meaning as true, though that is not always the case. From what you say about church discipline, it sounds like you're saying that this is the situation we're in.

At the same point, as I'm sure you'll understand, I'm rather wary of any sort of hermeneutic of obviousness as it can easily lead to oversimplification if Biblical exegesis, can stifle discussion and investigation of issues, and can make it easy for people to feel self assured in whatever belief they have (or in whatever they're claiming at that moment). It also can create issues if one assumes that those certain bits of scripture that we understand (or at least agree on) are the only important bits. It can quickly lead to the red-letter Bible problem as MacArthur mentioned above.

Having said that, though, any full on discussion of the coexistence of tradition, authority, and doctrine and their place within scriptural exegesis is a big topic and certainly deserves much more space and effort than this combox can accomodate.

3. Simple belief isn't simplistic
I would want to add on a personal note, that I do tend to think that one is warranted to believe something is true without full comprehension of how or why that thing is true. The justification for such a belief may extend anywhere from simply believing someone who does know something of the matter at hand to a personal experience of that matter. Of course, justification does not imply warrant and is certainly not a guarantee of certitude. As such, I would definitely agree that solid Biblical interpretation does not require a scholar, even if it does require a Spirit.

Traever Guingrich said...

i'll try to email you when i get home. i think we're having a little trouble deciphering tone/intent; at least on my part anyway. there's probably not much here we disagree about.

Traever Guingrich said...

ok, turns out i don't have your email. just send me one quick at traever7@yahoo.com or leave yours on here and i'll get. you have to promise we don't talk about gk chesteron though.