I don't get sola scriptura

[mackbrislawn]

John3
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Here’s an example. This is in the bible. Which is the inspired word of God. I can read it and through the power of the Holy Spirit understand that this is talking about Jesus.

All right, what does “believeth in him” mean? What does “perish” mean? What is “everlasting life”?

 

[mackbrislawn]

I don’t get sola scriptura either. No matter how I’ve heard it defined and discussed, it doesn’t make sense to me.

Let’s say scripture is the final and only infallible authority for Christian teaching. Okay, if we accept that statement as true, nevertheless there is still an unanswered question. For whom? For whom is scripture the final authority? That is, whose job is it to read scripture and derive teaching from it? Just anybody’s? Is it the job of the non-Christian who picks up a Gideon bible in his motel room?

To what or whom was scripture written? To whom does scripture belong?

These are questions that sola scriptura leaves unanswered as well as unasked!

JonC said that hermeneutics was not for the individual, but for the Church. This makes sense, although the question of what is Church needs to be answered.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

All right, what does “believeth in him” mean? What does “perish” mean? What is “everlasting life”?

1. “believeth in him” That the Father gave Him to die for our sins.
2. “perish” Destroyed, forever.
3. “everlasting life” Eternity with God.

 

[JonNC]

=mackbrislawn;8014831]I don’t get sola scriptura either. No matter how I’ve heard it defined and discussed, it doesn’t make sense to me.

That’s fine, Mack. For me, the thing I don’t get, is how universal jurisdiction is derived even from Tradition.

Let’s say scripture is the final and only infallible authority for Christian teaching. Okay, if we accept that statement as true, nevertheless there is still an unanswered question. For whom? For whom is scripture the final authority? That is, whose job is it to read scripture and derive teaching from it? Just anybody’s? Is it the job of the non-Christian who picks up a Gideon bible in his motel room?

Well, since sola scriptura is the basis for hermeunetics, it is the job of the Church. That is to say, as a Lutheran in matters of doctrine, we rely on the teachings of our communion - the creeds, the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, etc., - not on our own interpretation.
As for the non-Christian in the hotel room, if he reads that Bible, it ought to lead him to a church - maybe your parish, maybe mine - where the means of grace are available, as well as teachings.

To what or whom was scripture written? To whom does scripture belong?

To the Church Militant.

These are questions that sola scriptura leaves unanswered as well as unasked!

Does that help?

JonC said that hermeneutics was not for the individual, but for the Church. This makes sense, although the question of what is Church needs to be answered.

Thank you. Lutherans answer this question in the Augsburg Confession, saying that the Church is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments rightly administered. So, the concept of “Church” (not parish in this sence) is both those of us who are in Christ in the entire communion of saints, as well as the hierarchy of the organized Church, to which called and ordained clergy serve, to bring us the word and sacraments.

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

1. “believeth in him” That the Father gave Him to die for our sins.
2. “perish” Destroyed, forever.
3. “everlasting life” Eternity with God.

Umm, maybe believeth in him means more than that the Father gave Him to die for our sins. Maybe it means believing that he rose from the dead (that’s a tough one!). Perhaps also it means that we must follow his teachings. That we believe what he said is true.

Perish. My grandmother believed in him, but she perished, she died anyway.

Everlasting life. If it means eternity with God, why doesn’t it just say so?

The point, I guess, is that scripture may not be all that easy to understand. There are many ways to take a seemingly simple phrase or statement.

And, does the Holy Spirit guide our individual reading of scripture? Well, since there are so many different takes on what scripture says, maybe the Holy Spirit is not guiding us individually after all.

But if the Holy Spirit were guiding us individually, why do we need scripture? We don’t. All we need is the Holy Spirit.

 

[JonNC]

=mackbrislawn;8016029] The point, I guess, is that scripture may not be all that easy to understand. There are many ways to take a seemingly simple phrase or statement.

Agreed. Martin Chemnitz, the second generation Lutheran reformer says: *“This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages…” *

And, does the Holy Spirit guide our individual reading of scripture? Well, since there are so many different takes on what scripture says, maybe the Holy Spirit is not guiding us individually after all.

Of course He is guiding us. Sometimes our ability to rightly understand is blurred by sin.
Again, Chemnitz: “We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.”

But if the Holy Spirit were guiding us individually, why do we need scripture? We don’t. All we need is the Holy Spirit.

How, then, would the Spirit guide us? Roman 10:17; “Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.” He guides us through word and sacrament. This is why the Church is so necessary, where we find the mean of grace. It is His tool. He uses it to guide us.

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

JonNC;8015809]

Thanks, Jon, it does help.

Well, since sola scriptura is the basis for hermeunetics, it is the job of the Church. That is to say, as a Lutheran in matters of doctrine, we rely on the teachings of our communion - the creeds, the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, etc., - not on our own interpretation

. Yes, this makes sense to me. Since scripture was written to the Church in general, it is up to the Church as a collective body to interpret scripture. It is to the Church that scripture is the final, infallible authority, not the individual.

As for the non-Christian in the hotel room, if he reads that Bible, it ought to lead him to a church - maybe your parish, maybe mine - where the means of grace are available, as well as teachings.

It should lead him to a church, but a problem here is that there are so many churches to choose from. Plus, the very notion of sola scriptura seems to deny the need for church. This leads to the “Jesus Yes, Church No” type of mentality.

To the Church Militant.

I think so too.

Thank you. Lutherans answer this question in the Augsburg Confession, saying that the Church is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments rightly administered. So, the concept of “Church” (not parish in this sence) is both those of us who are in Christ in the entire communion of saints, as well as the hierarchy of the organized Church, to which called and ordained clergy serve, to bring us the word and sacraments.

I understand. But this seems to mean that for the individual, scripture is not the final, sole authority, but Church is. Correct?

 

[mackbrislawn]

JonNC;8016099]Agreed. Martin Chemnitz, the second generation Lutheran reformer says: “This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages…”

But if the Holy Spirit is guiding us, we are not relying on our own wisdom, but the Holy Spirit’s.

Of course He is guiding us. Sometimes our ability to rightly understand is blurred by sin.

Certainly sin blurs our ability to understand. But that is the whole point of the Holy Spirit, He will get us to understand in spite of our sin.

How, then, would the Spirit guide us? Roman 10:17; “Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.” He guides us through word and sacrament. This is why the Church is so necessary, where we find the mean of grace. It is His tool. He uses it to guide us

.Yes, as a Catholic, or, rather, as one like you who believes in Church, it is through the tool of the Church and sacraments that the Holy Spirit guides us individuals.

But there are those who think the Holy Spirit guides them directly, without need for Church. And, if without need for Church, why not without need of scripture as well?

 

[patricius79]

Of course He is guiding us. Sometimes our ability to rightly understand is blurred by sin.
Again, Chemnitz: “We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.”

I think that all of the Sola Scriptura oral traditions that came out of the reformation do involve the invention of meanings which conflict with all antiquity. so Chemnitz in a sense seems to be arguing against Sola Scriptura

e.g. the early Church unanimously taught Apostolic Succession of the Catholic Bishops, the gravity of the sin of contraception (as the reformers taught, based on Scripture), free will and non-double predestination (in constrast to Luther’s and Calvin’s teaching), the unique authority of the Pope (Mt 16:17-19), the veneration of relics (acts 19:11-12), etc

sometimes the Protestant scholarship runs against the prevalent Sola Scriptura oral traditions.

e.g. DA Carson refutes the insistent oral tradition of Protestaants regarding Mt 16:17-19, as does RT France and FF Bruce

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Umm, maybe believeth in him means more than that the Father gave Him to die for our sins. Maybe it means believing that he rose from the dead (that’s a tough one!). Perhaps also it means that we must follow his teachings. That we believe what he said is true.

Ok, if all these are true and I believe they are. How is that a problem with SS?

Perish. My grandmother believed in him, but she perished, she died anyway.

Ya here’s the thing with SS or with just reading the bible, we have to read what’s there and not what we think is there. This verse says nothing about “death.” Not the “death” of the body anyway.

Everlasting life. If it means eternity with God, why doesn’t it just say so?

I don’t get your objection here. Are you saying this doesn’t mean eternity with God? If you read the rest of scripture the fact that this means eternity with God becomes quite evident.

Rev.21
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

So I guess it does just say so.

The point, I guess, is that scripture may not be all that easy to understand. There are many ways to take a seemingly simple phrase or statement.

Except for the point about death there didn’t seem to me to be anything that you didn’t understand. The things you said about Jn, 3:16 for the most part are true, so I don’t get what the problem is.

And, does the Holy Spirit guide our individual reading of scripture? Well, since there are so many different takes on what scripture says, maybe the Holy Spirit is not guiding us individually after all.

But if the Holy Spirit were guiding us individually, why do we need scripture? We don’t. All we need is the Holy Spirit.

Because there are so many different takes on scripture in no way invalidates the fact that the Spirit of God guides those who are open to Him. It merely shows that many have chosen their own private interpretation exclusive of God’s Spirit.

 

[Nicea325]

Ya here’s the thing with SS or with just reading the bible, we have to read what’s there and not what we think is there. This verse says nothing about “death.” Not the “death” of the body anyway.

Exactly! Because SS is based off eisegesis,NOT exegesis. The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. SS followers tend “to lead into,” where the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants,hence eisegesis leads to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions.

Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with our own preconceived notions/beliefs.

Because there are so many different takes on scripture in no way invalidates the fact that the Spirit of God guides those who are open to Him. It merely shows that many have chosen their own private interpretation exclusive of God’s Spirit.

There are serious problems with the above statement. If the Spirit of God guides them,then why so many conflicts and thousands of different denominations? Who has the correct interpretation, if the Spirit of God is guiding him/her? I did not know the Spirit of God teaches conflict and multiple different truths?

Your argument is self-refuting because SS has been proven over and over again that it simply does not work.

 

[JonNC]

=patricius79;8016350]I think that all of the Sola Scriptura oral traditions that came out of the reformation do involve the invention of meanings which conflict with all antiquity. so Chemnitz in a sense seems to be arguing against Sola Scriptura

Well, I think the reformers would here argue that they were returning to the early Church teachings. For example, regarding the power and primacy of the Bishop of Rome, citing the Council of Nicea to refute universal jurisdiction.

e.g. the early Church unanimously taught Apostolic Succession of the Catholic Bishops,

The reformers (I’m always implying Lutheran when I say reformers) very much wanted to keep AS. This they attest to in the confessions. OTOH, what about Orthodox bishops?

the gravity of the sin of contraception (as the reformers taught, based on Scripture)

I wouldn’t argue this.

free will and non-double predestination (in constrast to Luther’s and Calvin’s teaching),

Luther did not teach double-predestination. It is such a significant point of disagreement (along with many others) for me as a Lutheran, that were I to have to choose between Catholic and Reformed, the choice would be easy - Catholic.

the unique authority of the Pope (Mt 16:17-19)

The unique authority of the pope, in what sense? That which is now taught by Rome, or that which is taught by Orthodoxy and, I believe, Nicea?

the veneration of relics (acts 19:11-12), etc

Lutherans do reject iconoclasm, if this is your reference.

sometimes the Protestant scholarship runs against the prevalent Sola Scriptura oral traditions.
e.g. DA Carson refutes the insistent oral tradition of Protestaants regarding Mt 16:17-19, as does RT France and FF Bruce

You would have to expand on what what you mean by “prevalent Sola Scriptura oral traditions”. That said, none of these folks are Lutheran, to my knowledge. France I believe is Anglican, and perhaps not prone to SS in the first place. But to the point of Matt. 16, you might think that I run counter to “ss oral tradition” as well, because I think there is more to this than just St. Peter’s confession of faith.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=mackbrislawn;8016224]Thanks, Jon, it does help.

. Yes, this makes sense to me. Since scripture was written to the Church in general, it is up to the Church as a collective body to interpret scripture. It is to the Church that scripture is the final, infallible authority, not the individual.

I think this is an important point. Since 1054, is it safe to say that the Church has not been a “collective body”? Could this be the reason (“popes and councils contradict each other”) that Luther turned to clear reason and scripture?

It should lead him to a church, but a problem here is that there are so many churches to choose from. Plus, the very notion of sola scriptura seems to deny the need for church. This leads to the “Jesus Yes, Church No” type of mentality.

I’m not convinced that the “Jesus Yes, Church No” thought represents a clear understanding of what sola scriptura is. It certainly misreads scripture.

I understand. But this seems to mean that for the individual, scripture is not the final, sole authority, but Church is. Correct?

For me it is correct. Of course, all of us make a determination, to one degree or another, which communion we accept as rightly reflecting scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

But if the Holy Spirit is guiding us, we are not relying on our own wisdom, but the Holy Spirit’s.

Certainly sin blurs our ability to understand. But that is the whole point of the Holy Spirit, He will get us to understand in spite of our sin.
.Yes, as a Catholic, or, rather, as one like you who believes in Church, it is through the tool of the Church and sacraments that the Holy Spirit guides us individuals.

But there are those who think the Holy Spirit guides them directly, without need for Church. And, if without need for Church, why not without need of scripture as well?

I see guiding as an active term, not finite. It is a continual process. The Spirit is the sanctifier, and as such, sees us through our growth in grace.

I guess Mack, regarding your last question, you would have to ask someone who thinks like that. I rely so heavily on the Church - our confessions - that I could never see myself remaining in grace without what the Church offers - the sacraments and doctrine. You probably agree with me.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Nicea325;8016590]Exactly! Because SS is based off eisegesis,NOT exegesis. The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. SS followers tend “to lead into,” where the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants,hence eisegesis leads to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions.

Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with our own preconceived notions/beliefs.

That may be true for some. For me as a Lutheran, and I think the Lutheran reformers to a large measure, they did rely on the ancients and early councils, certainly some more than others.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

There are serious problems with the above statement. If the Spirit of God guides them,then why so many conflicts and thousands of different denominations? Who has the correct interpretation, if the Spirit of God is guiding him/her? I did not know the Spirit of God teaches conflict and multiple different truths?

As I said above, I see this guidance as continuing, the idea being that this guidance leads to eternal life (salvation). To the extent that we have misinterpretations, we rely on grace.
Surely, God does not have multiple truths, nor does He teach conflict. These things are our doing, because of sin. I’m sure the Church Triumphant has none of these conflicts.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

That may be true for some. For me as a Lutheran, and I think the Lutheran reformers to a large measure, they did rely on the ancients and early councils, certainly some more than others.

Jon

Blessings my brother. Jon as a 21st century Lutheran,would you say the Lutheran Church of today adheres more to its early reformers and to the early church and councils? Or has it drifted more towards the more complex beliefs of SS by many different denominations? Or does it vary among different Lutheran synods? Does that make sense?

Thanks buddy.

God Bless

 

[Nicea325]

As I said above, I see this guidance as continuing, the idea being that this guidance leads to eternal life (salvation). To the extent that we have misinterpretations, we rely on grace.
Surely, God does not have multiple truths, nor does He teach conflict. These things are our doing, because of sin. I’m sure the Church Triumphant has none of these conflicts.

Jon

I agree with your statement Jon.

 

[JonNC]

Blessings my brother. Jon as a 21st century Lutheran,would you say the Lutheran Church of today adheres more to its early reformers and to the early church and councils? Or has it drifted more towards the more complex beliefs of SS by many different denominations? Or does it vary among different Lutheran synods? Does that make sense?

Thanks buddy.

God Bless

I think its a mixed bag. On the one hand, I am seeing a solid movement toward evangelical catholicism, a recognition of our catholicity as Lutherans. greater use of private confession, more reverent practices regarding the Eucharist, etc.
OTOH, I also see some, in my own synod, drifting in practice and thought toward what I would consider American evangelicalism, and others in other synods, drifting toward liberal protestantism. Neither of these are acceptable to me, as you can probably tell by my posts.

I don’t see either as an influence of SS, at least not in the Lutheran sense. For the liberals, I think it is a matter of drifting away from scripture and the confessions because of the influence of liberalism in the secular world. For the others, American Lutheranism has always had to fight against the influence of protestantism.

How convoluted does that sound?

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

Richard Kastner;8016549]Ok, if all these are true and I believe they are. How is that a problem with SS?

Ya here’s the thing with SS or with just reading the bible, we have to read what’s there and not what we think is there. This verse says nothing about “death.” Not the “death” of the body anyway.

That is true. We have to read what is there and not what we think is there. But mistakenly thinking that the verse is talking about death of the body is very easy to do. The thing is, we always, unawares, bring something else to scripture. Scripture is never alone, we always take our biases and preconceptions to scripture. And that is a problem with SS.

I don’t get your objection here. Are you saying this doesn’t mean eternity with God? If you read the rest of scripture the fact that this means eternity with God becomes quite evident

.No, I’m not saying it doesn’t mean eternity with God. What I’m saying is that a more natural meaning of “everlasting life” would be that we simply would not die, but keep on living. Unless, of course, you bring something else to scripture, a prior undrstanding! So, again, scripture is not sola.

Rev.21
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

So I guess it does just say so.

Indeed it does, at least to us who have a prior understanding of what the book of Revelation is getting at here. But not for others. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret this verse symbolically and make it to say something quite different.

We also must remember that the book of Revelation was written many years later, so it was not available to the earliest Christians. They could not consult Revelation to understand what everlasting life meant because that book didn’t exist yet! They had only the prior verbal tradition to help them.

Because there are so many different takes on scripture in no way invalidates the fact that the Spirit of God guides those who are open to Him. It merely shows that many have chosen their own private interpretation exclusive of God’s Spirit.

I guess so. How can you argue with logic like this?