/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>822014

This is the problem of sola scriptura.

>>822015

Read the second part of my post. Appealing to the Church doesn't solve the problem.I imagine if Luther was here he would say the Scripture is plainly clear in meaning and thus it is not difficult to grasp the author's original intention.

https://youtu.be/m1M8T6QbE2g

Here's a video which explains it better than I can.

>>822014

I don't fully, 100% agree with the first statement. Authors will, in a non-intentional manner, put messages in a text they're not fully aware of. If by "the author's intention" you mean only the intentions he's fully aware of, I have to partially disagree with your first statement. Any good piece of literature (and of art) has implicit meanings, apart from the explicit ones the author inserts in an intentional way. A writing that only possesses explicit meaning is not literature, but probably propaganda, an instruction manual, or some other thing.

Now, in the case of the Bible, there are, in a way, two authors to consider: the actual human author and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. A religious interpretation of the Bible requires understanding the later to interpret the words of the first. That requires reading the Bible as if it was one book, instead of a collection of books (which is how it should be interpreted if you're not looking for a religious interpretation but for a literary one, an historical one, or some other kind.). Reading it as just one story requires accepting the premise that all the books in the Bible have a good reason for being together, that reason being the early Church's tacit agreement on those books having a great inspiration of the Spirit, and thus being a reflection of Christianity's core beliefs.

To understand a book we must understand its context. The gospels and the acts of the apostles were written to teach other people what had happened during the life of Jesus and the early days of the Church. The different letter were written initially for communication, but were copied, distributed and passed down cause early Christians thought they were valuable. The Bible the collection of writings early deemed the most valuable and therefore it should be interpreted within the rest of the tradition of that early Church.

Taking the Bible and rejecting the writings of the early Church fathers is disingenuous. It's the same as if I took Augustine's writings to make my own religion but refused to take the Bible into account too. Were early Christians right when selecting books but not when clarifying doctrine? Not when organizing themselves? Not when having councils to separate the wheat from the chaff and point out erroneous interpretations of Christianity?

Understand what the Bible is, understand its context and its purpose. Taking the Bible but rejecting the rest is like eating the chips and leaving the steak. Christ did not write a book, but He did make a group of followers, taught them how to live their lives, gave them a set of principles, a structure and a mission, to announce the Good News. Christ's true legacy on Earth and the main tool he left here for the salvation of our souls is not the Bible, but the Church. The Bible only has sense when interpreted within the Church. Sola Scriptura is akin to eating the chips while leaving the steak intact, and then claiming the steak should've never been there in the first place.

" Taking the Bible and rejecting the writings of the early Church fathers is disingenuous. It's the same as if I took Augustine's writings to make my own religion but refused to take the Bible into account too. "

No, it is a hierarchy. Taking Augustine but rejecting Canon results in more error than rejecting Augustine and just focusing on Scripture. Not even close to being equal.

" Were early Christians right when selecting books but not when clarifying doctrine?"

Augustine was right, when he was right, wrong when he was wrong. He issued his "Retractations" for a reason, because he had made some significant errors.

Likewise, Athanasius was Athanasius "against the world" because EVERYONE ELSE IN THE CHURCH WAS WRONG, and had to come over to his side, over time. His was the only view in accord with Scripture.

"Taking the Bible but rejecting the rest is like eating the chips and leaving the steak."

No, taking "the rest" when it directly contradicts Scripture, but rejecting Scripture, is the no-steak diet. Studying Chrysostom, or Pope Gregory, or Calvin, is like putting some A-1 on top. Not essential, but definitely adds value.

"Christ did not write a book, but He did make a group of followers, taught them how to live their lives, gave them a set of principles, a structure and a mission, to announce the Good News. Christ's true legacy on Earth and the main tool he left here for the salvation of our souls is not the Bible, but the Church."

Yes, Christ preached verbal truth and oral tradition. But the Father and the Spirit also gave us a book.

Yes, I agree, the Bible can be seen as a subset of the Church's ministry on earth. But there is a hierarchy. The Prophets and apostles have veto authority over all blatant contradictions… i.e., requiring vows of celibacy for priests is simply wrong.

"The Bible only has sense when interpreted within the Church. Sola Scriptura is akin to eating the chips while leaving the steak intact, and then claiming the steak should've never been there in the first place."

Absolutely backwards again. Scripture is the steak. Church fathers are the salad and side vegetables.

>>822014

>How do we know we possess the original intention of the author?

The original author is ultimately God, so you could just ask Him.

>As for the circularity problem, think about it. Where does the Church's (or even the Pope's) authority come from? The Apostles spoken of in the Bible and Christ's sayings.

The Church's authority comes from God. You could just ask Him if its legit or not.

reformers did NOT believe that the "perspicacity of Scripture" meant that every layman could interpret Scripture privately and come to his own private result.

They believed that"not every passage is equally clear, nor EQUALLY CLEAR TO ALL"(westminster confession, e.g.). If that was true, there would be no need of men with the GIFT OF TEACHING, whether priests, popes, pastors, or laypersons, to teach the body of the Church.

Calvin, for example, had very high regard for the church fathers, esp. Jerome, Benedict, Bernard, Ambrose, Pope Gregory the Great, etc. He quotes them constantly.

But he didn't fail to point out where they were in error. The NT clearly records Peter being in error, after Christ's ascension. So much for papal infallibility.

The fracture brought about by the protestant reformation is not just a phenomenon that can be attributed to "sola scriptura".

The Roman Church was in serious error, serious corruption. The early magisterial reformers wanted reformation and unity with a reformed Roman church. This goal gradually slipped away more and more as time went on. It is still the goal. God will unify His church, with our without our help, in due time, because Christ prayed for the Father to do so in the high priestly prayer, and Christ did not ask for something the Father would not grant.

The cascade of fractures since the reformation are as much a result of other enlightenment dynamics and cultural/political errors which the Church will, I am confident, overcome in the future. For example, in the U.S., there is really no reason the orthodox, Bible-believing Reformed denominations should not unite into a single denomination.

They do this, because the pluralism of America allowed them to bring their faith with them, and to keep ethnic allegiance to their old national church: for example, Scottish Presbyterian, Dutch reformed, German reformed, French reformed, etc. The problem here is one of the proper relationship between church and state. In the older view, Calvin's view, the King had the right and obligation to FORCE church factions to call an ecumenical council to unify the church. Just like Constantine did.

America has allowed The presbyterians changed their view of church and state when they issued the AMERICAN wesminster confession around the time of the U.S. founding. This was a toxic compromise.

The lesson is: freedom of religion does not work for the Christian church. Some type of theocracy is necessary. The American system is poison.

There is no safe equation, whether a protestant confession, Papal infallibility, or Orthodox apostolic succession, which will provide some sort of "scientific mechanism" to lean on in order to find "infallible interpretation." It is an ongoing, living battle, waged by all of us as members of Christ's body, to interpret truth and error every day we are alive. Jesus said the Holy Spirit will "lead us into all truth" when He comes.

"And there must be divisions among you, so that it may be evident, those who are approved." -The apostle Paul.

However, if you listen to protestants who think "all truth" was done and finished with the writing of John's Revelation, then…no. Likewise if they think truth was finalized with a particular protestant confession or catechism. All church documents, where they are true and right, are simply further steps in our growth.

The Holy Spirit is STILL leading all of us in Christ's body into further truth every day. Even right here on this board.

We have infallible council statements on the Trinity. But not yet on sexuality or technology. The church fathers didn't foresee a need for those statements. The Holy Spirit will lead His church to make those statements in the future. We just have to take a long view.

He wants us to rely on HIM, not on the mere text itself, and not on any other "equation" or doctrine of infallibility, which kills and freezes truth in a particular state.

But it requires more faith to rely on the Holy Spirit to find HIS infallible will and infallible truth every day. And to repent and change when we are in error and we contradict.

Usually an option which requires more faith is the right option.

The WORD is LIVING AND ACTIVE.

Some good comments above, anons. Hope I can contribute some more:

Hermeneutics is one of the key battles of our times, thank you for joining the battle.

Some things I have gleaned from my own hermeneutics battles over the past few years:

Many modern, standard, hermeneutics "RULES" were developed as a REACTION to bad, lunatic interpretations and heresies of the past. Similar to the way modern administrative "RED TAPE REGULATIONS" , such as OSHA safety regulations, came about: the regulations are developed as a reaction to a bad or injurious event, to prevent future injuries.

But they often go too far and end up killing the text.

Beware of these excessively reductionist, deductive, "enlightenment"-era rules.

Beware of approaches to Scripture, and of teachers, who cause biblical exegesis to become a DISSECTION OF A DEAD TEXTUAL CORPSE.

"The letter kills, but THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE."

THE WORD OF GOD IS LIVING AND ACTIVE, AND SHARPER THAN ANY TWO-EDGED SWORD.

The "WORD OF GOD" includes all canonical Scripture, but also truly prophetic utterances and valid interpretations by Church teachers, prophets, priests, GOOD popes, GOOD protestant pastors, and laypersons, etc.

–"THE AUTHOR'S ORIGINAL INTENT"-

In one sense this was a good hermeneutics rule, designed to rule out "fanciful interpretions".

But it should be obvious to see that "original intent" of any author is impossible to know EXHAUSTIVELY.

Easy example:

When the OT Psalmist says, "God is my Rock, my Fortress"… What rock did he see in his mind's eye? His original, human intent, might have been for everyone to imagine a piece of white marble… or a piece of black granite. Without time travel/telepathy, we can never really know which rock the Psalmist meant. Obviously the Holy Spirit is simply concerned with the general category of ROCKS. If you envision a ROCK, you are "within interpretive range." If you envision lava, or loose dirt, while those are geologically related, you are out of range.

HERMENEUTICAL POISON IN MODERN CHURCHES

The modernist poison is all over the place, regardless of the particular stream of Church tradition in which you find yourself.

The most abuse (that I have encountered IRL and online) is "THE CULTURAL CONTEXT" interpretation. Also abused by more intelligent-sounding exegetes as "Historical-Grammatical Approach" to the text. See your comment re: "Author's original intent".

Yes, historical-grammatical approach is important to protect against fanciful interpretaions, but here's what to watch out for:

ANY "CULTURAL CONTEXT" EXPLANATION WHICH MINIMIZES THE AUTHORITY AND APPLICATION OF THE TEXT, AND ATTEMPTS TO ISOLATE ITS AUTHORITY SOMEHOW, IS TO BE REGARDED AS DANGEROUS.

This is most commonly abused in regard to:

Biblical sexuality, or

the use and application of Biblical law,

or: merely against direct Scriptural commands/exhortations that make us unfomfortable.

SIMPLIFIED EXAMPLE:

Pastor, priest, teacher gives a one-hour "historical background" sermon on the background of the text.

Lots of brilliant original-language vocab, grammar observations, and historical detail observations.

Refuses to apply it, to exhort or rebuke congregation.

Says "but that was given to a people living in a patriarchal time and cultural context".

Redirects to false historiography of the Church as a "change agent" making the world more egalitarian over time.

"Now that I've used historical-grammatical sophistry to make you feel sophisticated,

used an avoidance of application to make you feel safe,

and used a false historiography to help you perform your weekly virtue-signalling,

LET US PRAY AND DEPART."

Some guidelines:

There are as many VALID "interpretions" as there are hearers of the Word. Everyone can read "rock" in the Psalms and correctly imagine a different rock.

There are as many INVALID "interpretations" as there are hearers of the Word. Everyone can read "rock" in the Psalms and improperly imagine a different vision of flowing lava.

The Holy Spirit is giving us patterns in the Word. If interpretation and application MAXIMIZE the authority of the Word, they're generally good.

If interpretation and application MINIMIZE AND ISOLATE the authority of the Word, they're generally bad.

If interpretation multiplies and expands the Biblical pattern, it's good and valid. If it minimizes and contradicts the Biblical pattern, it's bad.

Bad hermeneutic:

Pastor John Macarthur's book on the parables of Jesus. He says there's only one main meaning that needs to be found in each parable.

BAD INTERPRETATON. Minimizes meaning and application. Might get a central lesson of each parable correct, but otherwise kills the text.

Good hermeneutic:

"Deep Exegesis" by Peter Leithart. GET THIS BOOK! He shows how every passage of Scripture has potentially EIGHT layers of meaning. We will probably find even more as the Church grows throughout history. Yes, grammatico/historical (properly applied), but ALSO: poetic, metaphorical, typological, eschatological, etc.

>>822017

If Luther was here he would deny the supernatural aspects of faith and try to edit the Bible more because his revolution failed in the end. Sadly Luther is probably in hell because the Priest failed to give him the Sacraments in time. If only he had grace or something.

Luther was an edgelord and fedora tipper. Who would have been an atheist if the Lords of Germany wouldn’t have slaughtered him for it.

THE WORD IS LIVING AND ACTIVE, NOT A FROZEN CORPSE WE CAN DISSECT.

The meaning of Scripture DOES change and expand over time, as long as it is IN ACCORD with the Spirit's prior revelation to us. The meaning changes every time a child hears "rock" in the Psalm, and imagines a rock in their own way, in their own mind's eye.

The meaning of Scripture also expands and changes EVERY TIME THE SCRIPTURE IS FAITHFULLY TRANSLATED INTO A NEW LANGUAGE.

And every time a church member genuinely receives a gift of tongues from the Spirit.

Is this risky because of possible misinterpetation? Sure. It's also awesome.

This was the meaning of God's destruction of Babel, and His reversal of Babel at Pentecost.

Every faithful translation expands Scriptural meaning because every language carries different interrelationships and connotations between its vocabulary, and even between its source alphabetic characters.

We lose a sense of the MAGIC of language and of God's revelation to us through this magic medium, by our lifelong familiarity with it.

But it IS magic. If you want an incredible dose of inspiration on this topic, check out "The Kingdom of Speech" by Tom Wolfe, the last book he wrote before he died. Even our fallen human language is a divine creation….real magic embedded in biological organisms…the various tongues could not have "evolved."

As cultures decay, and their languages become corrupt, there arises the need for new FAITHFUL translations from the original sources.

This is not a plan of Satan to block us from understanding the original Hebrew and Greek, it is part of Yahweh's plan, which he hid at Babel, so that He could reveal more of his glory and greater understanding of His word over time, as the gospel goes out to the nations of different tongues.

>>822017

"If Luther was here he would deny the supernatural aspects of faith and try to edit the Bible more because his revolution failed in the end…"

Ha!!! Got me laughing out loud on that one. That's just the sort of ballistic statement Luther would have made. Actually, its important that we not caricature the fathers of each others' traditions. Reading primary sources, or inquiring of those who have read them, with a genuine eye to seeking truth, is important. Luther would actually affirm all supernatural acts of God. He wrote and preached about the need to preach the word of God outdoors because it kept the demons from infecting the crops.

On the other hand, he did think Zwingli had gone too far without "discerning the spirits", and that many RC reliquaries were just a tourist business. Nice

try, though. I enjoy a ridiculous, historically distorted, straw man caricature as much as the next Anon.