MARTIN Luther and Sola Scriptura

[Bill_Pick]

]Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews?

 

[hmgs1]

Not to my knowledge, and I think it might be good to reacquaint all concerned with the Classic sola scriptura of Luther which was actually a theological throwback to Church doctrine the first 400 years of existence.

Luther’s SS held scripture was the only INFALLIBLE source of divine guidance, but NOT the ONLY source. Secondary sources such as tradition, though not perfect, were valuable supplements to the understanding of faith. Per Mattheson, interpretation of the Scriptures is done in and by the Church within the context of the regula fidei, or rule of faith.

Luther said however, that reasonable men could discern the core values of faith as interpreted by the Church, by reading the Bible themselves. If my undergraduate studies are correct, this is likely a concept thought of as a check or balance against possible abuse by corrupt leadership. This seems common to many of Luther’s beliefs. What really wigged him off may not have been the doctrine per se, but the corrupt application thereof.

After the Reformation certain Protestant groups that would eventually form the evangelical community evolved Luther’s beliefs into SOLO scriptura which said scripture was the ONLY source of divine inspiration, as well as personal interpretation. I think this is the true bane of the RCC and if truth be known, I’ve never really understood the concept of personal interpretation myself.

But I do see it in action. For 40 years I was a member of the Southern Baptist Convention which has no governing or interpretive body and where every church pastor interprets scripture himself. Also in 40 years I don’t think I ever heard the teachings of St Augustine or any church father mentioned once.

In PC USA there is a governing and interpretive hierarchy (church, presbytery, synod, general assembly) and last year our Breakfast with the Bible series focused solely on the works of Henri Nouwen, a Dutch Catholic Priest and his work with the handicapped in Canada.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Luther’s SS held scripture was the only INFALLIBLE source of divine guidance, but NOT the ONLY source…

Which is ironic, given that Luther then proceeded to eliminate books from the bible and change the words of scripture.

 

[hmgs1]

Which of course is your interpretation, but as you note with Chesterton, yea verily. Regardless I see no malice in Luther’s Bible. Wikipedia to my surprise (they are getting better) has a pretty good article on Luther’s Bible if anyone wants to look it up.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Which of course is your interpretation, but as you note with Chesterton, yea verily. Regardless I see no malice in Luther’s Bible. Wikipedia to my surprise (they are getting better) has a pretty good article on Luther’s Bible if anyone wants to look it up.

I don’t know if I would use the word malice, but don’t you find it at least a little amusing that Luther sought to change the book which he claimed to be the ultimate source of authority?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not to my knowledge, and I think it might be good to reacquaint all concerned with the Classic sola scriptura of Luther which was actually a theological throwback to Church doctrine the first 400 years of existence.

I’m not sure what you’re saying with the above statement. If it’s to somehow state that Martin Luther’s practice of sola scriptura was likened to the early Church fathers for the first 400 years, it’s flawed in my opinion.

The canon of the Bible was not defined until around 400AD. Prior to that time, while they did refer to epistles and letters written by the Apostles to the individual Churches they instructed or admonished with those writings, Church teaching or doctrines were passed through oral tradition, the same as our Lord taught the Apostles and the Apostles taught their disciples/students.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Let me give you a few examples of oral tradtion, starting with the Head of the Church, Christ Himself.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

This passage shows a couple of things. Number one, how did the people know what Christ was talking about when he spoke of the “chair of Moses”? It was not written anywhere else in the Bible, including the Old Testament. He did not have to explain what he was talking about, because they knew of the chair of Moses through oral tradition.

Number two, he was telling people to observe and do whatsoever they tell you, because He knew He was about to build His Church and it could be protected in matters of faith and morals through His Holy Spirit. He did not tell them to find themselves a Bible and that’s all they needed. He was teaching them about the authority of the Church, and it was clear authority not individual authority.

**1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.) **

How did St. Paul know about the rock that followed the Israelites through the desert? It was not written about anywhere else in scriptures, including the Old Testament! St. Paul could have only learned that through, oral tradition.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

Remember the story of Pharoah’s magicians? You know they turned their staffs into snakes and Moses staff/snake ate them both. How did St. Paul know their names? They are not named anywhere else in the Bible. St. Paul could have only learned this through, oral tradtion.

Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.

How did St. Paul know Christ said it was more blessed to give than to receive? It’s not written anywhere else in the Bible. St. Paul was not an eyewitness to Christ. St. Paul could only have known this through oral tradition.

The Church and the faith existed prior to a New Testament being written, and a canon of those writings defined, by the Catholic Church.

The irony of these sola scriptura discussions are the fact that scriptures do not support the argument that the Bible is the only source for divine inspiration. In fact, there are many scriptures that support quite the opposite. As hmgs1 points out, traditions, a rule of faith and the Church are required for correct interpretations.

I believe Martin Luther’s mistake, was to separate himself from the Church. I’ll agree there were actions of men that many saw a need to reform. But he should not have abandoned Christ’s Church as a correction to those actions in need of reform. You cannot heal something or rebuild something by leaving it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews?

Many bishops and Church authorities had individual commentaries, like Ignatius or Augustine, et al. However in times of disagreement, such as heretical baptism, the authorities of the Church prevailed in the authentic teaching. There was never any acceptance of sola scriptura where someone tried to interpret a verse against the Church’s. If they did they were identified as heretical, like say, Marcion (who separated the OT God and NT God).

 

[Steadfast]

]Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews?

It was a bit of a mixed bag with the Jews. Talmudism was developing and of course there were a number of “schools” of exegesis, we’ve heard of some of them: Sadducees, Pharisees, etc.

At any rate, what there never was was a single, central clearing house of biblical orthodoxy.

With the church there was definitely a received body of doctrinal notions having to do with the christotropic nature of Old Testament revelation but the writings that eventually came to make up the New Testament were definitely a matter of subjective evaluation. Peter even says as much about the writings of Paul.

Of course, Peter and everyone else understand that there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret the Bible, but again, there isn’t anything like what the RCC claims today.

The closest we come is with the council of Jerusalem, where the issue of Gentile believers was dealt with. But even here, while there was a certain presidency (not by Peter, interestingly enough, and not only because he was implicated in the argument), the findings were achieved by way of synodical congress rather than a top-down fiat.

 

[Steadfast]

I don’t know if I would use the word malice, but don’t you find it at least a little amusing that Luther sought to change the book which he claimed to be the ultimate source of authority?

1. Luther’s opinions about the OT Deuteros were shared by a growing number of scholars at the time that he lived and had always been permissible for scholars to hold.
2. Luther’s translation of the the Bible contained not only these controverted Old Testament books but James, Hebrews and all the ones he is claimed to have wanted to jettison.
3. At the time that Luther was expressing his opinions about all these books, which was both before and after his excommunication, nothing was ever said about them. Not a peep. No one ever had a problem with Luther’s canonical opinions until it became an issue within the last hundred years or so. This has more to do with the Catholic response to the rise of Protestant Fundamentalism than with any real issues having to do with the canon more generally.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It was a bit of a mixed bag with the Jews. Talmudism was developing and of course there were a number of “schools” of exegesis, we’ve heard of some of them: Sadducees, Pharisees, etc.

At any rate, what there never was was a single, central clearing house of biblical orthodoxy.

With the church there was definitely a received body of doctrinal notions having to do with the christotropic nature of Old Testament revelation but the writings that eventually came to make up the New Testament were definitely a matter of subjective evaluation. Peter even says as much about the writings of Paul.

Of course, Peter and everyone else understand that there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret the Bible, but again, there isn’t anything like what the RCC claims today.

The closest we come is with the council of Jerusalem, where the issue of Gentile believers was dealt with. But even here, while there was a certain presidency (not by Peter, interestingly enough, and not only because he was implicated in the argument), the findings were achieved by way of synodical congress rather than a top-down fiat.

Are you speaking of the council of Jerusalem referenced in Acts?

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us:
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Act 15:11 But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also.
Act 15:12 And all the multitude held their peace: and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me.
Act 15:14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take to the Gentiles, a people to his name.

It appears that Peter rose up after much debate and spoke and all the multitude held their peace. The Barnabas and Paul spoke and after that they held their peace. Then the Bishop of Jerusalem, James, spoke out and confirmed what Simon, Peter, had spoken.

 

[Steadfast]

Yes, and then Barnabas and Paul give testimony about the work of the Spirit among the gentiles (v. 12), and then James gives a ruling based on correctness and consensus (vv 19-21).

This is the synodical blue print…there is discussion, testimony and ruling.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

1. Luther’s opinions about the OT Deuteros were shared by a growing number of scholars at the time that he lived and had always been permissible for scholars to hold.
2. Luther’s translation of the the Bible contained not only these controverted Old Testament books but James, Hebrews and all the ones he is claimed to have wanted to jettison.
3. At the time that Luther was expressing his opinions about all these books, which was both before and after his excommunication, nothing was ever said about them. Not a peep. No one ever had a problem with Luther’s canonical opinions until it became an issue within the last hundred years or so. This has more to do with the Catholic response to the rise of Protestant Fundamentalism than with any real issues having to do with the canon more generally.

1. Irrelevant. A growing number of Lutherans today support abortion rights and gay marriage. The point is that on the one hand he claims that scripture is the ultimate infallible authority, and on the other he can’t even decide what scripture is!
2. Exactly.
3. Absolutely false.

Here’s one example from St. Francis de Sales, who brutally exposes the pride and error in the acts of the reformers:

Such are the sacred and canonical books which the Church has unanimously received and acknowledged during twelve hundred years. And by what authority have these new reformers dared to wipe out at one stroke so many noble parts of the Bible? They have erased a part of Esther, and Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees. Who has told them that these books are not legitimate, and not to be received? Why do they thus dismember the sacred body of the Scriptures?
angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/francisdesales.html

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, and then Barnabas and Paul give testimony about the work of the Spirit among the gentiles (v. 12), and then James gives a ruling based on correctness and consensus (vv 19-21).

This is the synodical blue print…there is discussion, testimony and ruling.

The discussion was the debating that had taken place prior to Peter rising up and ruling.

The ruling was made by Peter. Barnabas and Paul gave testimony. James gave no special decision on the discussion, he affirmed what was spoken by Peter. The decree is attributed to the Council of Apostles and Presbyters and not to James personally.

Act 16:4 And as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees for to keep, that were decreed by the apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem.

 

[Steadfast]

The ruling was made by Peter. Barnabas and Paul gave testimony. James gave no special decision on the discussion, he affirmed what was spoken by Peter. The decree is attributed to the Council of Apostles and Presbyters and not to James personally.

Act 16:4 And as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees for to keep, that were decreed by the apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem.

But James says, “This is MY judgement therefore.” (v. 19)

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Martin Luther himself lamented after the Bible got widely distributed into the hands of the laity that “every plow boy has become his own pope.” This of course is the bottom line disaster of Sola Scriptura, anybody can pick up a Bible and interpret it anyway they please without resorting to tradition, history, scholarship, or even the original language.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But James says, “This is MY judgement therefore.” (v. 19)

I apologize for editing my post, but I had posted before completing my thoughts. (I have a pre-exam lecture/study this evening and two exams, one tomorrow and one Thursday.)

He was the Bishop of Jerusalem. He was affirming what Peter had ruled on, to the people of Jerusalem.

Act 15:19 For which cause, judge that they who from among the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted:

Act 16:4 And as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees for to keep, that were decreed by the apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem.

 

[hmgs1]

I’m not sure what you’re saying with the above statement. If it’s to somehow state that Martin Luther’s practice of sola scriptura was likened to the early Church fathers for the first 400 years, it’s flawed in my opinion.

The canon of the Bible was not defined until around 400AD. Prior to that time, while they did refer to epistles and letters written by the Apostles to the individual Churches they instructed or admonished with those writings, Church teaching or doctrines were passed through oral tradition, the same as our Lord taught the Apostles and the Apostles taught their disciples/students.

This comes from Mathison’s book and he does provide solid evidence for the claim, though not enough to be held beyond a reasonable doubt. Mathison is Calvinist and most Catholic reviews of this book (such as that by Greg Krehbiel, good review BTW) dispute this point, though they tend to support the rest of his definition especially interpretation “in and by the Church.”

Personally, I wish I could find a review of stuff like this that did not originate from a Catholic, Lutheran or whatever writer. From an historical context only it would be interesting to see what a secular professional historian thought of his analysis. However, you take what you can get.

 

[hmgs1]

I don’t know if I would use the word malice, but don’t you find it at least a little amusing that Luther sought to change the book which he claimed to be the ultimate source of authority?

Only mildly because in his own mind its likely he did not believe that was what he was doing. He eventually kept all the disputed books IIRC and his editing - obviously from a Protestant POV - was designed to correct past mistakes as he saw them and make Biblical language more understandable to the German people.

Obviously Lutherans and Catholics have distinctly different opinions as to his success in the matter.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This comes from Mathison’s book and he does provide solid evidence for the claim, though not enough to be held beyond a reasonable doubt. Mathison is Calvinist and most Catholic reviews of this book (such as that by Greg Krehbiel, good review BTW) dispute this point, though they tend to support the rest of his definition especially interpretation “in and by the Church.”

Personally, I wish I could find a review of stuff like this that did not originate from a Catholic, Lutheran or whatever writer. From an historical context only it would be interesting to see what a secular professional historian thought of his analysis. However, you take what you can get.

:yup: