# Who has authority of the interpretation of Scripture? WCF, church, the Pastor, me?



## Ne Oublie (Jan 3, 2014)

Advice..

I believe that Scripture is the final authority. I also believe in what the 1st Chapter of the WCF states regarding scripture.
My question is who's interpretation of Scripture do I take as authority? My own? John Calvin's? My Pastor's?

I understand the principles of interpretation, as I do believe most people I know do as well.

I have many times struggled with this thought, especially when I do not agree with my own Pastor. As at some point, contention, even seemingly,
is hard to avoid.

I have encountered differing views in the following areas within the same presbytery.

Now, 
Worship(EP, mixed, instruments) WCF used to back this up
Sacraments(zwinglian, cavlinist, mixed) WCF used to back this up
Bible version(KJV, or anything besides the paraphrases)
End times(Postmill and Amill) WCF used to back this up
Headship(headcoverings, voting) WCF used to back this up
The Law(Sabbath observance, Theonomy, etc) WCF used to back this up
Civil Government(Theonomic, theonomic, etc) WCF used to back this up
Elders(Ruling and Teaching, or just Teaching) WCF used to back this up
Elder Education(none, locally trained, Masters degree, etc) WCF used to back this up

to name of few..


So, churches in the same presbytery, all profusely defended their views with the bible and the WCF, all claiming authority.

I have my own views as well, which in some part also claims authority.

Some would say that these areas are or are not essential to agree on. So, more disagreement there.

So, again, how do I determine what is and what is not authority and how do I find comfort in my own confession which
seemingly seems to be so broad in its possible interpretations. Or am I thinking about this wrongly?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 3, 2014)

In essence, everyone has _some_ authority to interpret Scripture, because everyone is ultimately accountable directly to God for a man's use of the knowledge God has provided directly to him, as a properly-built receiver.

The point of having church authority, is akin to any organization's requirement for leadership. Without leading authority, even a family is just a mob of equally competitive self-interests. Of course the fact that such authority is consequently empowered with indoctrinating capabilities implies the leadership needs be well-chosen, both for truth's sake, and because it may become corrupt and damage the organization and particular members.

In our churches, for the most part any given pastor represents a considerable investment of the whole church in a reliable, accurate witness to biblical truth. Most people who are experts in only one or two areas (typically related to family and work) yet desiring needed expertise in religion (as well as medicine, or dentistry, or plumbing, etc.) repose trust in the man they consent to pastor them. They defer interpretive questions to him; they accept his authority, and if he is any good his answers show his reliance and familiarity with the standard Rule, the Bible. Christians want their direction to come from God himself, even if mediated by an agent.

When we are already of one mind of interpretation, and an intermediate authority is of another, a new question is raised: is this an issue for which we must have agreement, without which we cannot maintain a healthy relationship in the current arrangement? Furthermore, how closely tied to gospel-essentials is this issue? How many "secondary" issues does this one make?

When it comes to tolerating associated people or bodies who have differences (that might be more difficult or impossible to bear if the relationship was more direct), the question should focus on the form of unity. There may be more than one way of application of a point of unity, and one side may have the better case (but not in the eyes of the rival)--but disruption would be a greater evil than toleration. If a church cannot contain at least a degree of application-diversity, it is not a strong church, and probably has different (major) problems.

This is not an open-ended appeal for toleration. The purpose for a form (or forms) of unity is to limit diversity to non-heretical, non-deviant levels. And the way to promoting greater consistency in application (where uniformity is not required) is by courageous and winsome persuasion--drawing on fact, logic, and history--and prayer, having confidence in God's authority not man's. *Because "God alone is Lord of the conscience," WCF.20.2.*

It is because of that last point that we recognize that there is no exercise of collective or institutional authority anywhere that is not ultimately an act (or combined acts) of "private judgment." Despite the trouble it can seem to us, God apparently finds it suitable to his purposes in the world to allow disagreements, including disputes over the significance of particular disagreements.

And about the worst "solution" so far proposed in history to this sin-related state of affairs is the idea that if only we all just agree to paper-over various conflicts, and sign-over all our private judgment duties to one Responsible Agent (a bureaucracy, or a pope), our burden will be lifted. Send the matter to the referee, and play on according to his whistle--after all, we're supposed to defer interpretive authority to him, right?

Except, we exercised private judgment when we chose him and that method of resolution, and we're responsible for that choice. Hmmm..., maybe if we reckon that _authority_ is *ALSO* "Lord of the conscience," yea, that's the ticket. And so, men surrender interpretation and conscience to human powers only too glad to take them over. And men are taught to feel good about the tyranny that cocoons them, they feel secure, protected, sin and error kept safely at bay. If anyone should now question this wisdom, he's obviously an enemy of freedom... from conscience, and interpretation! Just look for the robe, the ring, the hat, and do whatever he says. Ah, perfect unity, and we're not even in heaven yet.

************

Neither Scripture, nor the Westminster Confession (or any confession written with conviction) is justly open to any imposed interpretation. It means what it means, and we have a responsibility, under God, to seek the truth, and hold on to it for life. Multiple opinions doesn't mean there's no truth, or you aren't capable of gaining, by effort and prayer, in accuracy. 

Our comfort is not even in all those other who hold on with us, just so. What if I was blind, and couldn't see anyone? And deaf also? I'm not blind or deaf to Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Humility allows that I may be off in my interpretation and in my conscience. But that problem, which is systemic to a fallen world, is not solvable by guessing right at picking an external human authority--dead or alive, personal or institutional--and hanging with him. We are always like Peter was, standing on the waves.


----------



## Ne Oublie (Jan 3, 2014)

Thank you, Rev. Buchanan. Very much appreciated and very helpful.


----------

