The whole mag is fab, but there was one article that really caught my attention, the title is “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes” this is where my A vs. O comes in. You can read the article here for free, though you have to give your info…but good news, they will send you a free copy of the mag, so it is not all bad.
I’ll give you my loose sum-up of the article, or at least what hit me the most. I will preface that I know my bro, Chris, would be really interested in this, but will think all the things I have to say are probably poor arguments (since I am not a philosophy chic), so I encourage all to read the article for yourself...it is super cool.
Sola Scriptura says there is a “relation between Scripture and tradition…Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final and authoritative norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith.” To add to this, “Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of rule of faith, yet neither the church nor the rule of faith were considered second supplementary source of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the rule of faith was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God.” So, the church doesn’t trump Scripture, as maybe a Roman Catholic might believe, instead it helps individuals interpret Scripture. Why do we have the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed? It was because of heresy in the church, so the church used scripture and tradition to teach what is right and true.
Tthis has been interesting to ponder over the weekend. Just in case you were wondering…I still read my Bible, I just don’t try to come up with new ways of interpreting things. I look at the theology I have learned and make sure Scripture backs it up. If I don’t think Scripture backs it up I won’t be making my own theology, I will be doing some more studying and reading (in Scripture and from those old crazy reformers like Luther and Knox…and maybe from some of the new crazy reformers like Packer and Piper) to try to understand things.
Just for kicks I thought I would throw in the Nicene Creed. I have been studying about this recently and it is one of my new favs.
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
2 comments:
Very interesting thoughts. I’m not sure I agree, but then again I am not sure I disagree. The author writes, “[Scripture] is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith.” Well, what is the church, and perhaps the more obvious question, which or whose church?
I am no historian, but I understood Luther’s translation of Scripture from Latin and Greek into German, i.e. into the common tongue, to be a step in the direction of allowing people and to read and understand Scripture for themselves. The author indicates that “solo” Scriptura entails subjectivism, but it is far from clear why. It cannot simply be that people interpret Scripture differently. Churches also interpret Scripture differently, hence by parody of reasoning, “solo Scriptura” would also entail relativism. Moreover, the claim that “one ought to accept the interpretation that seems to be most plausible to me her” (note the author doesn’t make this claim I marked it off with quotes to make the scope of the nclaim clear) hardly entails relativism. Relativism is the (self-contradictory) philosophical view of truth that claims that no one can be wrong. But how is this implied, by “solo” Scriptura. In fact, I never saw any argument here that even borders being valid and sound. He is quite unhelpful here.
But maybe part of my difficulty is that he simply never defines what “solo” Scriptura is but instead indicates who has held it and some alleged implications of it. So maybe my quibbles are nothing more than a result of misunderstanding this view.
What I do agree with this: I certainly think that an interpretation that differs from tradition, especially rather unanimous tradition that stems back quite far into our history is a weighty matter. Moreover, I think it is simply arrogant to think that consulting commentaries is somehow “corrupting” the purity of the true meaning of the text. There are (no surprise!) way smarter people than me who have devoted their lives to interpreting Scripture. I think it is important to consult their collective wisdom. But we also must be aware of philosophical and culture influences. The bible has never been interpreted from within a vaccum, but comes from a certain philosophico-cultural perspective. I don’t think this means we can never know which interpretation is right, but it means that we should be away of our prejudices. But, I think this is all the more reason to study history since it is one of the best ways to (partly) transcend our philosophico-cultural perspective.
Lastly, traditions (it is simply silly to speak of “the” tradition of the Church; this is no more than a fiction) come, as the author admits, from fallible human interpretations of Scripture and hence ought not to be taken as the final authority. Moreover, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. disagreed about various theological and exegetical issues. So which should the church accept? I am far more optimistic than the author is that that we can adjudicate varying interpretations by an appeal to Scripture. Not all interpretations are equal here. We appeal to certain hermeneutics, historical evidence, biblical as well as historical context, original language, manuscript evidence, etc. A lot gets weeded out in this process. There will be disagreement, but I think this is inevitable.
Thanks for the thought provoking post.
p.s. two more months till Napa!!!
Some of your comments would prob be answered in the article, though not all. I think that the issue is when each individual reads scripture in a vacuum, they can come up with their own view that may or may not be true. In the early church the way they dealt with heresies was to have a council, and then they ruled on the heresy...gnostism, etc. Out of the council then came a creed, like the Nicene creed that notes Jesus was both God and man, not just spirit. And of course "the church" has been having councils ever since, ie, the council on Biblical inerrancy in 1978.
What was most interesting to me is that taking an individualistic approach to scripture is not always correct. I can kind of take the easy way out when I study scripture on my own. But when I study scripture under someone who knows what the junk they are talking about, it is a little different. If I had never done the Keller study on Judges I never ever would have learned the things that I learned. I would have seen God abandoning his people, and Israel following worthless leaders. I never would have seen Christ in Judges, I never would have seen how God continually lavished grace on his people even when they didn't ask for his grace,a nd certainly didn't deserve it, and I never would have made the connection to God graciously lavishing me with grace.
It is one thing for Christians to disagree on the meaning of communion (though of course Luther would disagree here), or the method of baptism, or hymns or praise songs. It is an entirely different thing to disagree on the humanity and deity of Christ, or the death and ressurection. These are laid out in scripture, but also for the "commoners" in creeds (Apostles, Nicene) and confessions (Westminster, Belgic) and catechisms (Heidelberg). But whatev, read the whole article and not just my summation and let me know what you think then. He gives more historical background for all of this.
Post a Comment