So understanding the subject matter makes one an authority. I see. What if his understanding is full, but also very wrong? For example, he can say, "I know that the bible says..." but then draw all the wrong conclusions too.
In general terms, that's right. I don't know where you've been for the last few years -- but unless you haven't noticed -- there are lots of "authorities" (and recognized ones) who disagree with each other. Thus the diagreement with each other doesn't make them be "considered" any less of an authority -- even though they can be saying totally opposite things to each other.
I have to laugh at this "splitting hairs" by you (in terms of the word "authority") because anyone and their dog knows that if one were to go into a court case and call in so-called "authorities" you could practically buy any authority you wanted for any viewpoint. Thus, what you say is totally irrelevant in terms of describing the word (and term) authority.
But, having said that -- there is definitely a concern for the truth -- no matter if one is an authority or not. And I think I answered that issue (i.e., the one about "truth") in post #62. That pretty much covers the issue.
Let me also say that the "authority of the inspired word of God" is not what we're talking about here. The question was simply "What makes him an authority?"
No person is "inspired of God" today, since the cannon of Scripture is closed. Thus, the authority that resides in Scripture (which is full and complete) is not what we're talking about here in terms of "What makes a person an authority?" That's a pretty general question and gets a pretty general answer.
My general answer stands.
Perhaps -- on the other hand -- maybe what one was really asking is how we can tell a wrong interpretation of Scripture from a right one? If that's it, then it gets a different answer (which I did not address, there).
Am I being clear here? Do you see why your answer is wrong?
One more follow-up here, on that issue. Using the dictionary, when referring to words (and their meanings) is usually a good method, too. If you examine the following from Websters (and I've included it all here), you can see that the most likely candidate for the usage of the word is -- 1c
Main Entry: au·thor·i·ty
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English auctorite, from Old French auctorité, from Latin
auctoritat-, auctoritas opinion, decision, power, from auctor
Date: 13th century
1 a (1) : a citation (as from a book or file) used in defense or support
(2) : the source from which the citation is drawn
b (1) : a conclusive statement or set of statements (as an official
decision of a court)
(2) : a decision taken as a precedent
(3) : TESTIMONY
c : an individual cited or appealed to as an expert
2 a : power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior
b : freedom granted by one in authority : RIGHT
3 a : persons in command; specifically : GOVERNMENT
b : a governmental agency or corporation to administer a
revenue-producing public enterprise
4 a : GROUNDS, WARRANT
b : convincing force
Once again, the question was what makes him an authority -- and my answer was correct, as the word is most commonly used (in his context). But, I have a feeling that this was not the true intent of the question (even though it was stated that way), you see....
Oh..., and I can imagine (with a lot of nit-pickers around here) someone is going to ask what makes him an expert, then... :-) I just happened to look it up and I think he qualifies that way, too. It was "one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject." I believe Missler fits that category pretty well.
But, again, that still doesn't answer the "truth issue" in the definition. But, then I wasn't trying to answer it there.