Posted on 07/06/2014 3:39:40 AM PDT by HarleyD
It is widely recognized that the formal principle underlying the Reformation was nothing other than sola scriptura: the reformers' diehard commitment to the other great solas was an effect arising from their desire to be guided by scriptures alone. The exegesis and interpretation of the bible was the one great means by which the war against Roman corruption was waged; which is almost the same thing as saying that the battle was basically a hermeneutical struggle. In light of these observations, one could say that the key event marking the beginning of the Reformation occurred, not in 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his theses to the church door in Wittenberg; but two years prior to that, when he rejected Origin's four-layered hermeneutic in favor of what he called the grammatical-historical sense. This one interpretive decision was the seed-idea from which would soon spring up all the fruits of the most massive recovery of doctrinal purity in the history of the Church. We would do well to learn from this: our ongoing struggle to be always reforming, always contending for the faith which was once delivered to the saints, is essentially a process of bringing every doctrine under the scrutiny of scripture. And in order to have the confidence that we are doing so legitimately, we must give much effort to being hermeneutically sound. Hermeneutics is the battlefield on which the war is won or lost.
If it is indeed the case that the recovery of a grammatical-historical hermeneutic was the formal principle underlying the Reformation, then we ought to be highly interested in what exactly Luther (and the other Reformers) intended by the expression. If Luther's hermeneutic was so effective in preserving the purity of the gospel in his day, then we may, with some reason, assume that it would benefit us in the gospel-battles of our day. Most, if not all, evangelicals today would certainly affirm that they are laboring with the grammatical-historical hermeneutic of the Reformation but do they mean by this term everything that Luther meant by it? In many cases, one would have to assume that they do not; because it is often the case that a basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament in particular is supported by means of a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. For Luther, the grammatical-historical hermeneutic was simply the interpretation of scripture that drives home Christ. As he once expressed it, He who would read the Bible must simply take heed that he does not err, for the Scripture may permit itself to be stretched and led, but let no one lead it according to his own inclinations but let him lead it to its source, that is, the cross of Christ. Then he will surely strike the center. To read the scriptures with a grammatical-historical sense is nothing other than to read them with Christ at the center.
What exactly do I mean when I say that many evangelicals demonstrate basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament? Simply put, I mean they employ a hermeneutic that does not have as its goal to trace every verse to its ultimate reference point: the cross of Christ. All of creation, history, and reality was designed for the purpose of the unveiling and glorification of the triune God, by means of the work of redemption accomplished by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The bible is simply the book that tells us how to see Christ and his cross at the center of everything. It tells us who God is by showing us the person and work of Christ, who alone reveals the invisible God. If we do not intentionally ask ourselves, How may I see Christ more clearly by this passage, in our reading of every verse of scripture, then we are not operating under the guidance of Luther's grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If we would follow in the steps of the reformers, we must realize that a literal reading of scriptures does not mean a naturalistic reading. A naturalistic reading says that the full extent of meaning in the account of Moses' striking the rock is apprehended in understanding the historical event. The literal reading, in the Christ-centered sense of the Reformation, recognizes that this historical account is meaningless to us until we understand how the God of history was using it to reveal Christ to his people. The naturalistic reading of the Song of Solomon is content with the observation that it speaks of the marital-bliss of Solomon and his wife; the literal reading of the reformers recognizes that it has ultimately to do with the marital bliss between Christ and his bride, the Church. And so we could continue, citing example after example from the Old Testament.
But how was it that this shift came about in the commonly perceived meaning of the term "historical-grammatical sense" from the reformers' day to our own? In a word, the rise of academic liberalism. The reformers were contending for the truth in a society in which the supernatural world was as definitely accepted as the natural world. They had no need to demonstrate that the Bible was a spiritual book, given by God to teach us spiritual truths, that is, truths about Christ and the cross everyone accepted that much. They were contending instead with a hermeneutic that essentially allowed one to draw from any text whatever spiritual significance he liked – if he had the authority of the Church behind him. But the Enlightenment so radically changed the face of society, that it was soon thereafter no longer sufficient to speak of a "literal" hermeneutic: one also had to make clear that this literal hermeneutic had as its object a thoroughly spiritual and Christ-centered corpus of writings. The basic intent of the liberal theologians subsequent to the Enlightenment was to downplay the supernatural; hence, their reading of the scriptures emphasized the human authors and human historical settings entirely apart from the God who was governing all. And, although the thoroughgoing naturalism of the liberals was soundly defeated by many evangelical scholars, some of its emphases seem to have seeped into the very idea of a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, where they continue to exert a deadening influence on much of evangelical scholarship even today. Three specific ways in which, I would contend, the modern conception of a literal hermeneutic has been colored by the Enlightenment, are, first, the maximized emphasis on the human authors of scriptures (together with the corresponding de-emphasis of the divine author); second, the naturalizing of the hermeneutic, so that it intends to discover what a natural man, upon an acquaintance with the natural setting, would immediately understand about a text; and third, the resultant fragmentation of the bible, so that it reads less like one unified, coherent story about a promised Redeemer and how he actually came in human history and accomplished his work – and more like a handful of loosely related sacred documents, with various purposes, intentions, and themes.
Our task as modern reformers has much to do with the recovery of the Christ-centered element of the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If we would let our sola scriptura lead us to solus christus, then we must be willing to battle against the modern corruption of one of the reformers' most precious legacies; a literal hermeneutic. To that end, I would submit the following six reasons why any hermeneutic which does not see Christ at the center of every verse of scripture does not do justice to the Reformed worldview.
1. A naturalistic hermeneutic effectively denies God's ultimate authorship of the bible, by giving practical precedence to human authorial intent.
2. A naturalistic hermeneutic undercuts the typological significance which often inheres in the one story that God is telling in the bible (see Galatians 4:21-31, for example).
3. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for Paul's assertion that a natural man cannot know the spiritual things which the Holy Spirit teaches in the bible; that is, the things about Jesus Christ and him crucified (I Corinthians 2).
4. A naturalistic hermeneutic is at odds with the clear example of the New Testament authors and apostles as they interpret the Old Testament (cf. Peter's sermon in Acts 2, Paul's interpretations in Romans 4 and Galatians 4, James' citing of Amos 9 during the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, the various Old Testament usages in Hebrews, etc.).
5. A naturalistic hermeneutic disallows a full-orbed operation of the analogy of faith principle of the Reformation, by its insistence that every text demands a reading "on its own terms".
6. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for everything to have its ultimate reference point in Christ, and is in direct opposition to Ephesians 1:10, Colossians 1:16-18, and Christ's own teachings in John 5:39, Luke 24:25-27.
They are wrong. You are clearly a TWO trick pony.
Here, kick this around: Are you ‘narses of Washington state’, or ‘Washington state the narses’?
AND since this thread is about sola scriptura, which you reject, you can ignore this clue: The scriptures only have the phrase ‘Son of God’. Even the Christ never called himself ‘God the Son’.
Since you don’t believe sola scriptura, you don’t have to answer it head-on, you can just trot out one of your trick ponies.
In the Religion forum, on a thread titled The Reformers’ Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered, Zuriel wrote:
AND since this thread is about sola scriptura, which you reject, you can ignore this clue: The scriptures only have the phrase ‘Son of God’. Even the Christ never called himself ‘God the Son’.
Since you don’t believe sola scriptura, you don’t have to answer it head-on, you can just trot out one of your trick ponies.
Well said! I agree completely.
Fortunately, we have the Word of God that we can read for ourselves and with which the indwelling Holy Spirit illuminates the truth to those who are diligently seeking it. For example, "gates" don't DO anything but keep stuff in or keep stuff out. When gates "prevail", it means they succeeded in their function. But, we know that the gospel is able to penetrate those gates and get souls out. This is far from the false interpretation that heresies will never prevail against the Roman Catholic church - because there HAVE been many instances of just that happening. The Holy Spirit, however, WILL never fail to guide God's people into all truth - those that are willing to search for it with all their hearts and it is found in the Divinely- revealed Scriptures.
Amen. There IS no other way!
I notice that you haven’t gotten an answer to that. I’m thinking they don’t want to admit that they take what the RCC says as their scripture.
Yes, I agree. I actually think the problems started around 1200AD when many were leaving the Catholic Church over the Crusades. New stricter rules came into practice leading to the likes of John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and William Tyndale. These great men planted many seeds which blossomed.
Wow, I guess that's it. When the RCC says that protestants follow a book, the same is true for them. The difference is that our book was inspired by God and closed, while their book continues to be written.
Our books beyond the Bible must agree with the Bible. If they disagree, the Bible wins.
The RCC assumes that their books beyond the Bible automatically agree with the Bible. If they disagree, then it is the person who notices the disagreement who is in error. Anyone who notices a disagreement has either misinterpreted the Bible or the RCC teachings. Besides, anyone outside of the RCC hierarchy isn't eligible to judge.
Reality check: Latin, not English, is the official language of the Catholic Church. The Latin word translated into English as "church" is ... wait for it ... ecclesia.
The only reason you even know what books belong in your "inspired by God and closed" book is because the "RCC" decreed it, 1600 years ago.
Go ahead: prove to me from the Bible, and the inspired text of the Bible alone, that 1 Peter or Philemon or 3 John belongs in the Bible. You can't, which is why Luther called James an "epistle of straw" and wanted to remove it.
Do Catholics not understand the term “corrupted” meaning of “church” or “ecclesia” or whatever? The RCC has totally changed the meaning just as gay used to mean happy. Ecclesia in the original Greek meant a called out group. Not some conglomerate overreaching organization.
Why are Catholics so loath to give credit to God? If God did use the Catholic Church to preserve scripture they may want to consider that God also used Judas,Balaam's donkey, and Herod.
**The only reason you even know what books belong in your “inspired by God and closed” book is because the “RCC” decreed it, 1600 years ago.**
No. They didn’t.
Keep drinking that Kool-aid though.
For Catholicism their “traditions” trump scripture anyway. They can make up what they want and for the followers it becomes scripture because the RCC has decreed they believe it.
The only reason you even know what books belong in your "inspired by God and closed" book is because the "RCC" decreed it, 1600 years ago.
Why do you assume that Christians need the RCC to determine what is of God and what is not? Many years before 400 AD, the apostolic writing was within the churches. They shared their letters. Some true, some false. The false were rejected. The true endured.
Revelation 2. to the angel of the church in Ephesus write... you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.
Polycarp, student of Paul, wrote a letter to the Philippians. In that letter he states that Paul "wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you,"
The need for historical apostolic succession comes in, paradoxically, from the point you raised.
You’re absolutely right that the true church of Christ must resemble the first century church (or as you call it the “New Testament church). No one (reasonably) disagrees with that. Everyone claims that is the case about the church they attend.
Thus the real question is, as verga implied, how do we determine which one is in line with the early church?
You suggest one method, checking and comparing the Scriptures (a record of the early church) with a present contender. This is certainly one method. It’s certainly an indespensible method. Harmony with what is recorded in Scripture is *required*.
But this begs an even more basic question: how do we decide what is in line with Scripture and what is not? This is really why I clicked on this thread. It touches on a very important point: why did Luther feel he had a better way of reading Scripture than the Church he came from.
It’s still not clear after reading the OP where he (Luther) got his idea for his hermeneutical approach. It certainly *sounds* reasonable, this notion of just reading Scripture in the “grammatical-historical sense”. Who wouldn’t want to do that? Just because something *sounds* reasonable though doesn’t mean it is, and/or doesn’t mean it’s the safe thing to do!
Also, and more germane, I’m still left wondering who decides what this sense means (because it’s not fully defined in the OP) and how it’s applied verse by verse.
Thus, herein lies the root of the problem with sola scriptura:
1. By what reasoning did Luther engage this hermeneutic? That is, by what source, valid historical (or even otherwise) source did he find this disused hermeneutic, and recover it from the mists of time? It’s not clear from the OP.
2. Also, how (on it’s face) is this hermeneutic different than what the Catholic Church uses? That is, is the author (of the OP) seriously arguing the Church doesn’t use the grammatical sense in interpreting Scripture at all? Or the historical? The Church never uses these hermeneutical approaches when interpreting Scripture, at all, is that what the author is claiming? Because if so, then this article surely is based on a strawman.
Inherent in #1 is a need for an authority based not only in history but also the supernatural. However this means that this source of authority must not only have a supernatural link, but an historical one too. This can’t be escaped.
This need is recognized (partially) in sola scriptura, by recognizing the historical and supernatural source of Scripture. As pointed out before however, Scripture in isolation is not the full solution, as everyone claims they read it correctly. This points to the need for an additional historical and supernatural source. Which is where apostolic succession comes in.
You present an interesting point. The fallacy is to consider mere sinful men to be that "supernatural source". If there are men worthy of the task, then why would we need Christ? Why not just strive to be so worthy? But, alas, Jesus made it very clear that no man could be sinless, thus no man can act as that "supernatural source".
Why is it so difficult to believe that god provided the entire "way, and the truth and the light" in Jesus Christ..... It's that simple. And if the bible is the living Word of God, then it is god speaking to us, and the Holy Spirit interpreting. Some of us put our entire faith in the Words of the scriptures and know that we do not need priests and man-designated special saints to intercede for us, and we do not need a Pope to act as a supreme entity or spokesperson for God. We accept the simple truth that Jesus Christ is all that we need.
You mentioned that each religion thinks they are like the early church. No, that is not true. Some of us are, however striving as best we can to be as close to that benchmark as we can get..... Knowing in humility, that we fall short, but praying for God's guidance and knowing we have His forgiveness.
Please forgive me for being so blunt..... But it is the height of arrogance to say that your particular religious sect holds the keys to apostolic succession and that you always will. And to believe that no one else can possibly be "Christian" unless they bow to your Pope's man-made rules.
I will say again, the "CHURCH" as described in scripture, is the body of believers and followers in Jesus Christ, whether they attend worship service at a Protestant or RC building. Although I must say that personally I would have trouble worshipping where there are visible satanic symbols ..... Example, the pagan Egyptian Obelisk in saint peters square at the vatican. There are many more examples, but I'm sure you are not blind.
No, it isn’t. Oh it’s what the Catholic Church has duped people into believing but no where in scripture is there such a thing as “apostolic succession”. True Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
True Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and it is He who will reveal what we need to know. No “magesterium” is taught or condoned in scripture. In fact, it is blasphemous against the Holy Sprit to replace Him with some man made office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.