Issues of the Reformation: Scripture

[Josiah]

.

Issues of the Reformation: THE BIBLE


One of the really important issues concerns Authority and Epistemology. The issue of Authority is what trumps what (or who)…. The issue of Epistemology is how do we know what is true? Both are very interconnected and both were major issues in the Reformation.

BOTH the Roman Catholic Church and Martin Luther agreed that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, written words of God. But while Luther argued that therefore it is the Authority, the Roman Catholic Church argued that ultimately, it itself was. The Roman Catholic Church insisted that it itself (uniquely) is The Voice of God, the inerrant Teacher of doctrinal and moral Truth. While it insisted that the Bible and The Roman Catholic Church never disagree (the Bible couldn’t or it would be wrong), nonetheless, the teaching Authority was it itself. Thus, while Luther pointed to Scripture… the Roman Catholic Church pointed to itself. And while Luther argued that all teachers (persons and denominations, including himself) are accountable to Scripture, The Catholic Church argued all are accountable to itself (if a teaching agrees with The Catholic Church – it therefore is right, if variant then the teaching was wrong). Thus the conflict and the issue. Much of this is expressed on the Lutheran side by the Latin phrase: Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).



Who/What is the Authority?


“Epistemology” is the issue of how we know. While we can know something about God from Creation and introspection and even reason (something of the “image of God” remains after the Fall) it’s not much! Fortunately, God has kept in touch! In ancient times, He would literally speak to leaders (such as Abraham or Moses) or through Prophets (such as Isaiah or Micah) but He also has spoken to all of us in enduring ways via writing – the first example of Scripture being the Ten Commandments written (directly, literally) by God on two tablets of stone, which immediately became the Rule (“straight edge”) or Canon (“measuring stick”) for morality. This is how we know about God – right from God, whom we affirm as the Author of Scripture. Lutherans hold that GOD is the Authority and we read His very written words in the pages of His very Scriptures to us.

The Roman Catholic Church argued that we know via “the three-legged-stool” which it declared as 1) The Roman Catholic Church's current understanding of “Tradition” of it itself, plus equally 2) The words of the Bible as it is currently and authoritatively interpreted by it itself, plus equally 3) The official, current views and rulings of the leadership of it itself. These three are inseparable and form one, united “stream” of Authority so that each “part” compliments and adds to the others to form the one united and inseparable truth. For example, since #3 is true – so #1 and #2 must therefore agree with #3 if only by implication and not actually stated.


What is the Bible?


The Reformers believed that the written word of Scripture is God’s very words to us (1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Corinthians 2:13, 2 Peter 1:21). God used various penmen as His instruments (some known, most not) – and seemed to have often used their personalities and such in the process - but the final result is His. The Reformers thus believed that Scripture is reliable and dependable in its purpose, embracing it as indeed “inerrant” (John 17:17, John 10:35). God knows more about the things of God than we do (or any individual denomination). We use the Bible to learn about God, His promises and counsel, and to provide a “rule” for Christian teachings and claims. We look to the Bible for Law and Gospel. And we believe that God’s Scripture is “authoritative” because of its Author, whom we believe is God.


Sola Scriptura or “The Rule of Scripture in Norming”

The words mean “Scripture Alone” and it affirms that God’s written word is the final “Rule” (straight edge) or “Canon” (measuring stick) for the evaluation of Christian teachings (especially disputed doctrines among us). It affirms that God’s words are above our words, that our teachings are accountable to God’s teachings (and not the other way around). The practice goes all the way back to the first Scriptures as Moses directed the people’s attention to the supreme authority of the Ten Commandments of God. Jesus used the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) some 50 times during His ministry, as just recorded in the Bible (no doubt there where MANY examples not so recorded),

Lutherans reject that a teacher or denomination may claim to be unaccountable or that his/her/its teachings are equal to or above Scripture.


What about Tradition?

Of course, God’s written words in Scripture usually need to be interpreted and applied. There may be honest disagreements about that. Lutherans would STRESS that the actual words of the text must be supreme and the norm, and usually that resolves much. We’d also stress the context of the verse – both immediate (the chapter, for example) and greater (the whole of Scripture). This concept of embracing context is sometimes referred to as “Scripture interpreting Scripture” (“clarifying” might be a more accurate verb there). But again, valid differences of interpretation might be possible.

But UNDER the actual printed words of Scripture is what we refer to as “Tradition” (big “T”). This refers to the historic, ecumenical, universal consensus of God’s people, especially in terms of interpretation of Scripture. In nearly all the important areas, Christians struggled with the difficult verses and issues – intensely and prayerfully looking at the Scriptures, debating and discussing and praying and studying, often for centuries – and eventually, a consensus developed that was textual (“fits” perfectly the words of Scripture) and ecumenical. Lutherans take this very seriously. Lutherans see no reason to “reinvent the wheel” in every generation as if no one has thought or studied about these things before (the Bible is 3400-2000 years old!) or as if the Holy Spirit only leads me. We respectfully embrace the “wisdom of the past.” We call this Tradition.

But it’s important to remember that Lutherans consider such “Tradition” as under Scripture and not equal to or above it. And the “Tradition” we speak of is ecumenical not denominational. Catholics consider the Tradition of the specific Catholic Church to be equal in Authority and normative function with God’s Scripture, but Lutherans place ecumenical consensus below that. This consensus or Tradition – however wise – is OUR “stuff” and not equal to God’s Scripture any more than we are equal to God. Our interpretation and application is not equal with the text itself, we believe. Lutherans tend to embrace Tradition more than other Protestants but less than Catholics. Lutherans study the Church Fathers and Christian history, we look to the true Ecumenical Councils and we regard highly the “Church Fathers” and “Church Councils” of our past – we just don’t consider them as equal to or above God and God’s writings.

Luther is credited with saying, “We must be bold where God’s Scripture is bold and silent where God’s Scripture is silent.” The second is just as important as the first. Lutherans approach Scripture with firm embrace but with awe and great humility. We are comfortable with tensions and balances and admitting that we just don’t have all the answers. Lutherans (along with Christians in the early church) call this “mystery” and note that we are called to be “stewards of the mysteries of God.” While The Catholic Church is more eager to apply its own Tradition and human philosophy, and whereas some other Protestants are more eager to apply human logic or reason, Lutherans are more comfortable with just embracing the mystery and leaving it as Scripture leaves it. “Letting God have the last word.”


Discussion?



Pax Christi


- Josiah




.

 

[Tigger]

Well after all of that was said if I wasn't already a Lutheran I'd be compelled to become one :smilie_geb_011:

 

[Josiah]

Other threads in this series, focusing on the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation:


Priesthood of All Believers - http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...f-the-Reformation-Priesthood-of-All-Believers


Salvation - http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?3349-Issues-in-the-Reformation-Part-one-SALVATION



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Scripture was never an issue in the "reformation". In truth the scriptures that Protestant have were the holy scriptures that the Catholic Church preserved for them but, of course, the protestants eviscerated the holy scriptures by deleting seven books (1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach) and parts of two other books (Esther and Daniel). The real issue was authority. The authority that was questioned was the authority of the magisterium and also the authority of apostolic traditions. Protestants substituted themselves for the magisterium and personal opinions for apostolic traditions. John Calvin's Gineva made it a crime not to attend a protestant church on Sunday. Elizabeth's England made it a crime not to attend the Church of England service on Sunday. Various German and Scandinavian states had similar laws. In many countries being a Catholic was treated either as treason or as heresy. Catholic nations did similar despicable things to Protestants in their lands. The point of this little post is to concentrate on what the issues were. Scripture was not an issue. Both Catholic and Protestant regard scripture as the inspired written word of God which is able to make a godly man complete, equipped for every good work in his (or her) service of God. The difference between Catholic teaching and Protestant teaching is how the holy scriptures are interpreted and who offers official interpretation for the purposes of forming church doctrine.

 

[Josiah]

Scripture was never an issue in the "reformation".

The THEOLOGY of Scripture was not an issue, the USE of Scripture was at the very core of the Reformation. Read the OP.

In truth the scriptures that Protestant have were the holy scriptures that the Catholic Church preserved for them

AMAZING how Roman Catholics just entirely forsake the Jews and all Eastern Orthodox Christians.... in the amazing, incredible ego of the RCC, it was it itself that took care of the Ten Commandments, all the OT, all the NT - no Jew or Orthodox Christian had a THING to do with it. But again, the THEOLOGY of Scripture is not in debate, the role of Scripture is. Please read the opening post.

the protestants eviscerated the holy scriptures by deleting seven books (1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach) and parts of two other books (Esther and Daniel).

Nice try at evasion, but again, you are wrong.

Luther's personal translation of the Bible actually had one MORE book in it than your post-Trent unique RCC Bible (one which NO OTHER DENOMINATION ON THE PLANET agrees with). Yes, we know that your denomination removed several Deutero books which the OOC and EOC had and still have in their Bible (to create a UNIQUE tome) - a deletion of books which the RCC seems to think is just fine for it itself to do, the post-Trent RCC thus having FEWER books in its own unique tome than ANY other Apostolic church (even if we include the LDS in that) and one LESS than Luther put in his personal translation. A point no Catholic teacher likely chose to tell you.

And we know that for some 1000 years, just the individual RC Denomination often had 28 books in the NT (including the Epistle to the Leodiceans which it removed at Trent by not mentioning it - although many Catholics ignored that and continued to include it in RCC Bibles). But Lutherans actually don't appoint self alone to determine what books are and are not Scripture (lacking the ego of the RCC and LDS, both of which have appointed self alone and uniquely to do this), and as with Luther's own translation, INCLUDED many of the DEUTEROcanonical books (one MORE than your new, unique RCC tome does, although no Lutheran tome has ever included the Epistle to the Leodiceans).

So you are not only wrong, but off topic: The issue in the Reformation was never the Epistle to the Leodiceans (which your denomination chose to ignore in the Reformation), nor ANY of the DEUTEROcanonical books (most of which your denomination deleted from its own unique tome, excluding MORE books than Luther did), it was the ROLE of Scripture that was an issue. This Catholics will try to evade, Catholics often will try to divert any discussion away from that to other issues (like that Epistle and the one DEUTERO book Luther included but Trent deleted).

The real issue was authority

Yup.

Who/What is the Authority?


“Epistemology” is the issue of how we know. While we can know something about God from Creation and introspection and even reason (something of the “image of God” remains after the Fall) it’s not much! Fortunately, God has kept in touch! In ancient times, He would literally speak to leaders (such as Abraham or Moses) or through Prophets (such as Isaiah or Micah) but He also has spoken to all of us in enduring ways via writing – the first example of Scripture being the Ten Commandments written (directly, literally) by God on two tablets of stone, which immediately became the Rule (“straight edge”) or Canon (“measuring stick”) for morality. This is how we know about God – right from God, whom we affirm as the Author of Scripture. Lutherans hold that GOD is the Authority and we read His very written words in the pages of His very Scriptures to us.

The Roman Catholic Church argued that we know via “the three-legged-stool” which the RCC itself individually declared as 1) The Roman Catholic Church's current understanding of the “Tradition” of it itself, plus equally 2) The words of the Bible not as written but as it is currently and authoritatively interpreted by it itself alone, plus equally 3) The official, current views and rulings of the leadership of it itself. These three are inseparable and form one, united “stream” of Authority so that each “part” compliments and adds to the others to form the one united and inseparable truth. For example, since #3 is true – so #1 and #2 must therefore agree with #3 if only by implication and not actually stated.


.

Pax Christi


-- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

The difference between Catholic teaching and Protestant teaching is how the holy scriptures are interpreted and who offers official interpretation for the purposes of forming church doctrine.

That wasn't the issue raised by the Reformation, however. The point that we know as Sola Scriptura asserts that it is Scripture which is authoritative, not Scripture along with theological opinion, custom, folklore, or anything else of that sort.

 

[Josiah]

HOW Scripture is interpreted (hermaneutics) was not an issue of the Reformation. But the RC Denomination was and is the biggest, boldest, most radical defender and promoter of individual, unaccountable, authoritative interpretation of Scripture (and pretty much everything else for that matter): it radically and dogmatically insists only ONE may do this: it itself. See what it itself states in the Catechism of it itself #85. This most reject (even a lot of "Catholics" do, in my experience). But admittedly, while only the "cults" generally have a view as extreme as the RCC on this, I would not deny that a bit of this is found everywhere... in varying degrees. it's not simple. But Albion is correct - this wasn't an issue directly. It's simply a "symptom" of the RCC's insistence that it itself is the Authority. See the opening post.

 

[hedrick]

HOW Scripture is interpreted (hermaneutics) was not an issue of the Reformation.

Are you sure? As long as Scripture means what the Church says it means, sola scriptura doesn't mean anything. It's my impression that sola scriptura went along with the idea that Scripture should be interpreted according to its plain sense (e.g. not allegory except in the few cases where that was clearly the original intent), and that interpretation is accessible to all Christians.

The latter is a difficult point, because obviously there are people who have studied languages, history, etc, more than a typical member, and they should be listened to.

 

[Albion]

Are you sure? As long as Scripture means what the Church says it means, sola scriptura doesn't mean anything.

It certainly does--and I think that you know it to be so. Sola Scriptura was not a plea for letting everyone come to his own conclusions, although the right to access the word of God was another issue in the Reformation. Sola Scriptura was a rejection of all manmade and incidental SOURCES of doctrinal guidance and a reassertion of the sufficiency of divine revelation, i.e. Scripture, alone.

 

[Josiah]

It certainly does--and I think that you know it to be so. Sola Scriptura was not a plea for letting everyone come to his own conclusions, although the right to access the word of God was another issue in the Reformation. Sola Scriptura was a rejection of all manmade and incidental SOURCES of doctrinal guidance and a reassertion of the sufficiency of divine revelation, i.e. Scripture, alone.

Well stated....

In part Sola Scriptura is a fundamental REJECTION of the claim of the individual RC Denomination for it itself alone that it itself alone is unaccountable, and that whatever IT itself individually says therefore is what God says, believes and proclaims. Sola Scriptura is an embrace of accountability (and THAT is the reason why the RCC and LDS so passionately reject it); none can simply exempt self alone; none can simply say "I say it so God has to agree and you must docilicly swallow it whole" (well, GOD can - but that's it). The epistemological foundation of the RCC is that there is ONE (just one) besides God that is (conditionally) infallible, unaccountable, the Mouth of God, to which even God must submit: and that's it itself, exclusively and individiually, "ME!" [See footnote below]

But the primary aspect here is establishing a norma normans. The reality is that disputes exist (even within the RC Denomination). Get 2 Christians (even Catholics) into a room and eventually, they'll disagree on something. Sure - one can just foundationally insist that there is ONE who just can't be wrong and thus is unaccountable and that ONE is the ONE he sees in the mirror.... but that really doesn't solve anything (just observe the RCC and LDS - both using this identical epistemological principle). Similar to the Rule of Law in civil affairs, the Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura) flows from a position that ALL are accountable.... and to an objective, knowable, unchangable rule or canon or norma normans OUTSIDE and ABOVE all the parties. Does this resolve all disputes in dogma? No, no more than having written, known Laws eliminates all bad behavior - but it's essential to resolving such disputes: otherwise, all that matters is the strength of ones arm and ego (which is exactly why the RCC is so incredibly full of ego). Imaging driving where there are no laws, no signs to proclaim them, no lines down the middle of the road, no accountability to anyone (well, no accountability for ONE - the ONE who claims such for self exclusively)? The Rule of Law and the Rule of Scripture both embrace equal and full accountability to all, and establish the 'measuring stick' by which all will be measured, the objective, written, knowable, unchangeable Rule by which the matter will be judged. It's better than any just exempting self alone from all that.


Actually, Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with hermeneutics (interpretation). But here too we find a curious contradiction from Catholics (who so HATE this principle!!!). The RCC will scream "NO INDIVIDUAL INTREPRETATION!" But there is no denomination on the planet that INSISTS on that more than it itself alone. See CCC 87. What the RCC says is, "It's BAD, EVIL, WRONG, DANGEROUS, UNCHRISTIAN for self to interpret Scripture...... and I insist that I myself alone interprets Scripture." I think I was about 10 years old when that contradiction hit me.... But we are off topic on that point; the issue here is not hermeneutics but Scripture (including its use as the Rule in norming disputed dogmas).



Pax Christi


- Josiah



Footnote: Actually, even God is often seen as accountable to the individual RC Denomination..... I asked my Catholic teachers, "What if something the Church teaches is at variance with what Scripture teaches?" This is the universal reply: "Well, GOD teaches through Scripture and GOD teaches through His Church so if the Church teaches something different than Scripture, then God would be wrong in Scripture. Is that possible?" Over and over again, I witnessed Scripture being held accountable to the RCC..... in order for God to be correct, He must agree with the RCC. I think THIS is one foundation of the Roman Church that Luther rejected.