I promised also to add some thoughts from the Institutes about the Church, its ministers and their functions. and its operations.
That’s going to be a tougher job than I thought because it’s the entire purpose of the whole of Book 4. And to say the least, there is a lot there! I’m going to go through Book 4 again, very carefully. And try to keep my comments to a reasonable length.
So does anybody want to talk about sola scriptura?
I would very much like to hear more from Lutherans.
And @Gamma Gamaliel, a nod to Barth is always appreciated for my part.
Well, shit.
"The Nick tempted me, and I ate."
Okay, what can I say?
What follows is not obviously the perspective of someone who's been to seminary or sat on the CTCR (Committee for Theology and Church Relations). But I'm pretty sure you've got no other LCMS Lutherans here. I'll do what I can.
This is what sola scriptura means to me.
It means, very personally speaking, that the Bible is where I met Jesus Christ. Very literally so; I was a child from an abusive family, uncared for, unnoticed, trying to survive. I was given a copy of the Bible when I was seven for Christmas. Nothing else was said to me. I got no religious training. My father was anti-Christian. Basically all I knew about Jesus was that it was a swear word. Oh, and that "cool people" had nothing to do with the Bible. (God knows where I picked that up.) You can see why I locked myself in the bathroom before I cracked the cover and started reading Genesis. I didn't want my family to find out.
So when it comes to the debate you all have been having about church vs. Scripture, for me it's no contest. Scripture was and is the foundation of my faith, and for me, the church grows out of Scripture. (Very literally so, if you consider the church my husband and I planted together.)
I'm rambling. I'm sorry.
I started reading the Bible as I would any book of fairy-tales, and somewhere before the Psalms, I became a believer. I can't point to a day or even year. I didn't get baptized because that would require telling someone what had happened to me. I didn't get into regular contact with any church until I was 12, and my mother saw an advertisement for confirmation classes and thought it was a Bible study, and signed us up. By that point I had finished reading Revelation and was starting over. Having a near-photographic memory meant that I went into that class armed for bear, so to speak--I had been reading in the epistles about the dangers of false teachers, I was terrified that these Lutherans (whom I knew nothing about) would turn out to be false teachers, and I was prepared to jump all over the pastor who was teaching if he said anything contrary to what I knew from the Scriptures. (spoiler: he didn't.)
About the only thing Confirmation classes taught me was the proper names for doctrines I already knew from the Scripture. I already knew the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, his deity and humanity, etc. etc. etc. None of that was new in any way, with one exception: I discovered that the humanity of Christ included a human soul/spirit, and not just body. It wasn't that I had ever disagreed with that, more that it had never occurred to me that humanity included a spiritual component. (I had previously figured spirits/souls/psyches were more or less all the same thing, across all existence, and therefore um, interchangeable? If you wanted to do incarnation, I mean.)
I give you this long and rambling story to show you the importance of the Scriptures to me, then and now. I was severely depressed by age three, and suicidal by age seven; and I was given no help at all in dealing with my issues, or with the child abuse. I truly think that, if I had not read that Bible, I wouldn't have made it to age 20.
So, based on what I learned out of Scripture, AND its ongoing importance to my life, this is what sola scriptura means to me. It is completely compatible with the LCMS to the best of my knowledge, which is pretty extensive. If it were not, I'd be in a different church body.
1. The Scriptures are God's word, God's message to the people of the world, whom he loves and wants to belong to him as his children, forever. The message of the whole Bible is Jesus Christ--everything is intended to point us to him. Because the Bible is written for such a huge and varied audience, there are going to be bits that speak to one audience much more clearly than to another. That's fine.
3. The Scriptures are the result of the Holy Spirit working in and through human beings. The human stamp is clear and obvious, and that's fine. The divine stamp is also obvious, at least to me, but I wouldn't expect it to be obvious to non-believers, why should it be?
4
5. The Scriptures are the first place to go when you want to know something about God, or how he deals with people. They take precedence over human philosophies and even over logic (see for example the Lutheran teaching on single predestination, which says that if you are saved, it's completely due to God's work, but if you are damned, it's entirely your own foolish fault. Not logical, I know, but it's what we see in Scripture.)
7. In a conflict between the church and the Scriptures, the Scriptures win.
9. In a conflict between me and the Scriptures, the Scriptures win.
11. In a conflict between Jesus and... oh come on, there is NO WAY he's going to get into a conflict with his own Scriptures! That's just silly.
13. If, per impossibile, you could PROVE a conflict between Jesus and the Scriptures, the first thing we would do is go looking for the error in the way we're handling the text. Because we can and do admit that there can be errors in translation, in explanation, and even in transmission (copying) of the original autograph texts. We make use of textual science (aka lower criticism) to avoid these errors as much as possible; but none of us are going to look at (say) the current ESV text and swear to you that there isn't a single error in it. We'll do that with the autographs, if we could possibly get hold of them; but there's no likelihood of that.
15. Scripture is not equally clear to all people on all points at all times. It can be downright murky in places. That's why we have education, yes? And the original languages, and textual studies, and archaeology, and anthropology, etc. etc. etc. It is indeed possible for someone to come to a full-fledged, Trinitarian, orthodox and informed Christian faith from nothing but the Bible (I did); but it is not ideal. And given human beings, it's entirely possible that they (we) can take something and twist it up.
17. That's also one reason we have the church, because the Spirit lives in Christ's people, and that's who you consult if you are having trouble understanding a particular passage, and the languages etc. are not being sufficient help. It is not ideal to have a lone ranger Christian or a lone ranger interpreter of Scripture, because we are broken human beings, and we all fuck up in many ways.
19. Points 5, 8, and 9 means I need to cultivate humility. Humility first of all toward the Scriptures--if I don't understand why God said something, I don't get to change it to suit my own notions--or my desire to fit in, or to spare myself embarrassment or any other trouble.
21. The same points mean I need to cultivate humility and charity also toward other human beings, including those with whom I have disagreements on Scriptural issues. And since Scripture teaches me that all believers in Jesus are my brothers and sisters, that means I have to bend over backward to help them and care for them, regardless of our disagreements on various issues--including some that are frankly scary in how deep they go. (I'm thinking now of a Oneness Pentecostal my husband is helping to navigate difficulties in running an elder care center. We can't do anything that would make it look like we signed up to her view of the Trinity, but there's nothing to stop us caring for the sick and disabled, offering cultural advice, etc. etc. etc.)
23. There's no need to defend the Bible, or defend God, or defend orthodoxy or orthopraxis. God doesn't need my help to do any of that. My job is to get on with staying faithful in my own life, and when possible, to pass along these gifts to other people. Being obnoxious for Jesus is not a spiritual gift. Those who do such things are in my opinion betraying a lack of faith in the position they claim to hold. If they were truly convinced, why would they be so defensive? Truth will out, in the long run.
You'll notice the neuter "to pneuma," "The Spirit", which grammatically should be followed by an "it." But no, in this verse, Jesus picks up with "ekeinos" (he) which is certainly masculine. He is breaking grammatical rules to do this, so I can't see it as anything other than his own choice.
I was told that the reason for that was to ensure his listeners thought of the Spirit as a person and not as a thing.
.
Thanks for that, particularly given the pressure of your present circumstances. Lots of common ground between us re personal meaning, Lamb Chopped.
Re Jesus and the scriptures, a question or two.
When Jesus says, in the Sermon on the Mount, “You have head it said ….. but I say unto you.” Do you think that is always merely necessary correction of human interpretation? One of the most famous comments “love your enemies”is not something I find stated directly, or even implied, in the OT.
I suspect there is a difference between us in this sense. I see an evolution of understanding in scripture of various things; for example, the nature of God is not presented monotheistically throughout the OT. There is movement between “no other Gods before me” and “I am the Lord and there is no other”. Also there is a development of ethical understanding, probably best summarised as the meaning of love, both in God, for God, and for others. It’s hard for me to see how all of scripture is univocal on those issues, for example. To make it clear, I don’t see that as a straight line, that the later is always more true than the earlier. There is some wandering about!
I suspect we are in complete agreement about how we, as Christians, see what is true about those two issues (monotheism and love). But I’d rather say that there is evidence in scripture of the journey towards understanding of God’s people. No doubt you can sense my nonconformist conscience! I worry about the “all scripture” assertion of infallibility. From my own fallible understanding of course!
Thanks for that, particularly given the pressure of your present circumstances. Lots of common ground between us re personal meaning, Lamb Chopped.
Re Jesus and the scriptures, a question or two.
When Jesus says, in the Sermon on the Mount, “You have head it said ….. but I say unto you.” Do you think that is always merely necessary correction of human interpretation? One of the most famous comments “love your enemies”is not something I find stated directly, or even implied, in the OT.
I suspect there is a difference between us in this sense. I see an evolution of understanding in scripture of various things; for example, the nature of God is not presented monotheistically throughout the OT. There is movement between “no other Gods before me” and “I am the Lord and there is no other”. Also there is a development of ethical understanding, probably best summarised as the meaning of love, both in God, for God, and for others. It’s hard for me to see how all of scripture is univocal on those issues, for example. To make it clear, I don’t see that as a straight line, that the later is always more true than the earlier. There is some wandering about!
I suspect we are in complete agreement about how we, as Christians, see what is true about those two issues (monotheism and love). But I’d rather say that there is evidence in scripture of the journey towards understanding of God’s people. No doubt you can sense my nonconformist conscience! I worry about the “all scripture” assertion of infallibility. From my own fallible understanding of course!
I find it implied in normal social discourse in the Iron Age scriptures. And beyond. It's been human normal for at least 3,000 years. And therefore 30,000, 300,000.
Leviticus 19 is limited by “ among your people”, isn’t it? It certainly doesn’t exclude hatred for enemies who are not “our people”. The “Councils of Wisdom” is indeed a valid precursor but it is not a part of the Wisdom books in the OT. And we’re discussing scripture.
I've not had chance to read @Lamb Chopped's lengthy posts in detail but I will do and am sure they are well worth reading.
The only comment I'd make at this stage is - as you'd expect - that the scriptures 'come out of' community.
The Hebrew scriptures came out of a particular faith community with all its tussles and disagreements - the faith community of Israel.
Likewise the New Testament. It doesn't 'precede' the Church. The scriptures came out of the faith community which recognised Jesus as the Christ and many of them were written to convince others that this was the case.
I rightly get castigated for my emojis but I'm making a serious point here and whilst it's not one that is completely overlooked I think it can be elided to the extent that we see a rift developing between the scriptures and the Church.
Yes, it's one of these both/and things ... the Church through the scriptures and the scriptures through the Church but we need a balanced centre of gravity here.
Others will think my centre of gravity is off kilter of course.
So even if we do come to the scriptures in isolation we aren't actually doing so because in encountering them we aren't only encountering the God to whom they point and of whom they speak and who inspired them but also the faith community through which they came and from which they derived.
The Jewish faith community. The Christian faith community. The 'Old Testament Church' as it were and the New.
Also, there is certainly an issue re the authority of all of scripture. Calvin stated correctly that the scriptures predated the councils, but I think he glossed over the establishment of the canon, which excluded some books previously considered by some to be authoritative. F. F. Bruce (Open Brethren Academic), supporting the Calvin view ant least in part, asserted that the councils ratified what was generally agreed. From memory, although mentioned, I think he glossed over legitimate concerns at the time about 2 Peter and Revelation. And the Protestants excluded from the canon of the OT a number of books previously included.
The boundary of authoritative sacred writings was another issue of dispute. Even in the Reformation, Martin Luther opened the can of worms of relative value with his limited approval of the letter of James.
All scripture is inspired? Which scripture? And to a greater or lesser degree of usefulness? These questions have been with us from the very beginning, and still continue.
Leviticus 19 is limited by “ among your people”, isn’t it? It certainly doesn’t exclude hatred for enemies who are not “our people”. The “Councils of Wisdom” is indeed a valid precursor but it is not a part of the Wisdom books in the OT. And we’re discussing scripture.
Indeed, but in ordinary social discourse, your enemy is of your people, your neighbour, your family. And scripture is nothing special in this regard. Jesus wasn't addressing the military or even the citizenry in how to behave in warfare. Love the invader coming at you with a sword isn't in there is it?
Dunno! I don’t see Jesus limiting enemies in the way that Leviticus 19 limited neighbours.
Perhaps we can say that the statement widened the scope of compassion any limits to that, so far as armed, invading, agressors are concerned, has been a subject of vexed discussion ever since. The whole “just war” thing. Two of the founders of my local congo (now passed on) were convinced conscientious objectors who refused to take up arms.
A tangent too far? I think I’ll open another thread.
The boundary of authoritative sacred writings was another issue of dispute. Even in the Reformation, Martin Luther opened the can of worms of relative value with his limited approval of the letter of James.
All scripture is inspired? Which scripture? And to a greater or lesser degree of usefulness? These questions have been with us from the very beginning, and still continue.
The Orthodox Church did not find it necessary to formally define the Canon of Scripture until 1672 (Council of Jerusalem), where the need for a decision arose out of discussions with Western churches.
Thanks for that, particularly given the pressure of your present circumstances. Lots of common ground between us re personal meaning, Lamb Chopped.
Re Jesus and the scriptures, a question or two.
When Jesus says, in the Sermon on the Mount, “You have head it said ….. but I say unto you.” Do you think that is always merely necessary correction of human interpretation? One of the most famous comments “love your enemies”is not something I find stated directly, or even implied, in the OT.
I suspect there is a difference between us in this sense. I see an evolution of understanding in scripture of various things; for example, the nature of God is not presented monotheistically throughout the OT. There is movement between “no other Gods before me” and “I am the Lord and there is no other”. Also there is a development of ethical understanding, probably best summarised as the meaning of love, both in God, for God, and for others. It’s hard for me to see how all of scripture is univocal on those issues, for example. To make it clear, I don’t see that as a straight line, that the later is always more true than the earlier. There is some wandering about!
I suspect we are in complete agreement about how we, as Christians, see what is true about those two issues (monotheism and love). But I’d rather say that there is evidence in scripture of the journey towards understanding of God’s people. No doubt you can sense my nonconformist conscience! I worry about the “all scripture” assertion of infallibility. From my own fallible understanding of course!
I'm going to do just a little at a time with all these interesting things as I have a meeting in a minute or so, but will start by noting that Jesus himself made it clear that the Law as given to Moses was never intended to be God's ultimate statement of right and wrong. Look at the passage on divorce. I'm using Matthew 19:
7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."
What this says to me is that God himself is practical, and realized that if he set the bar too high, the people of Israel would give up completely on any attempt to mend their lives or treat one another decently. So instead of saying "no divorce," he says, "If you're going to divorce (because of course you will, there's not a chance in hell that I could get you to avoid that entirely), AT LEAST give the woman a certificate of divorce so she can prove she is free to remarry. Don't jerk her around by claiming you're divorced when you don't want to support her, but still married when you want to interfere in her future relationships." (see "agunot" for an example of just this kind of jerkery in the 21st century.)
What this means to me is that when I read the Law (or any other prescriptive passage), I need to ask the question: Is this in fact what God intends for me now? For them only? For all eternity? and so on and so forth.
We see Jesus doing the same sort of thing in Matthew 5-7, where he ratchets up the expectation of the Law to unbearable heights. IMHO anybody who reads THAT and thinks they can still earn God's favor through living a perfect life is ... well, seriously deluded.
I think Paul handles slavery in much the same way.
I’m tempted to start another tangent! My own research opened my eyes to some of the deeper aspects of what Jesus said about indissolubity. To put it briefly, given the times, divorce of a woman by a man reduced her to a parlous state and she had no real redress. His comments, which were to men, have to be seen in that light.
The only comment I'd make at this stage is - as you'd expect - that the scriptures 'come out of' community.
The Hebrew scriptures came out of a particular faith community with all its tussles and disagreements - the faith community of Israel.
Likewise the New Testament. It doesn't 'precede' the Church. The scriptures came out of the faith community which recognised Jesus as the Christ and many of them were written to convince others that this was the case.
I rightly get castigated for my emojis but I'm making a serious point here and whilst it's not one that is completely overlooked I think it can be elided to the extent that we see a rift developing between the scriptures and the Church.
The classic con evo response to this is that it was the content of the scriptures - the call from christ to follow him, the apostolic preaching of the gospel, the voice from the burning bush etc. That gave birth to the community of the church.
The westminster confession iirc uses the phrase that scripture was written by "holy men and the holy spirit" to acknowledge the duel authorship of the bible - the community is acknowledged but not in and of itself authoritive in this view.
The 39 articles seem to view the creeds as a distillation of biblical theology as they may be proved by sure warrant of scriptures or words to that effect (quoting from memory).
The Orthodox Church did not find it necessary to formally define the Canon of Scripture until 1672 (Council of Jerusalem), where the need for a decision arose out of discussions with Western churches.
I think that’s true, but so is this.
The canon of the Catholic Church was affirmed by the Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), two of the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419),
I do know that there were differences of understanding, both of inclusion and also the value of some documents not on the lists (e.g the Infancy Gospel of James). The need for precision over the canon was less important in those days than the clarifications of Orthodox doctrine arising out of Tradition. Which of course included the available documents concerning the apostolic faith once given.
The boundaries of scripture were much more important to the Protestants because of their belief that Scripture stood above both Tradition and Church Authority. The development and application of Church Authority was precisely what they were protesting about.
I’m tempted to start another tangent! My own research opened my eyes to some of the deeper aspects of what Jesus said about indissolubity. To put it briefly, given the times, divorce of a woman by a man reduced her to a parlous state and she had no real redress. His comments, which were to men, have to be seen in that light.
Yes indeed! All his comments on divorce have to be read in that light. For instance, the one about how a man who divorces a woman "makes her to commit adultery"--that's not a judgement, that's an observation, a plain statement of reality. Because the only two options she has are to remarry or to become a prostitute--and either choice involves having sexual union with a man who is not the man she first married. And it's not a choice, either. She has to eat, these are her only options, and so if that union is breached, it's entirely on her ex-husband who forced her into that situation.
Thanks for that, particularly given the pressure of your present circumstances. Lots of common ground between us re personal meaning, Lamb Chopped.
Re Jesus and the scriptures, a question or two.
When Jesus says, in the Sermon on the Mount, “You have head it said ….. but I say unto you.” Do you think that is always merely necessary correction of human interpretation? One of the most famous comments “love your enemies”is not something I find stated directly, or even implied, in the OT.
I suspect there is a difference between us in this sense. I see an evolution of understanding in scripture of various things; for example, the nature of God is not presented monotheistically throughout the OT. There is movement between “no other Gods before me” and “I am the Lord and there is no other”. Also there is a development of ethical understanding, probably best summarised as the meaning of love, both in God, for God, and for others. It’s hard for me to see how all of scripture is univocal on those issues, for example. To make it clear, I don’t see that as a straight line, that the later is always more true than the earlier. There is some wandering about!
I suspect we are in complete agreement about how we, as Christians, see what is true about those two issues (monotheism and love). But I’d rather say that there is evidence in scripture of the journey towards understanding of God’s people. No doubt you can sense my nonconformist conscience! I worry about the “all scripture” assertion of infallibility. From my own fallible understanding of course!
Okay, the meeting is over and I'll indulge myself for a moment before I start doing what I ought to be doing. I want to take your second paragraph. Well, third...
You say you see an evolution in understanding as Scripture goes on. I would take that a slightly different direction. IMHO, the people's understanding of reality (including whether other gods actually existed or not) grew over time; God was always aware of their current level of understanding, and addressed them accordingly. To be sure, he could have said, "Stop everything. Let's discuss this idea some of you have, that other gods have an actual existence--or at least you talk like they did. Repeat after me: There is one God only..." He could have done that, but by and large, he didn't. He seems to have been content with shaping them over a long period of time in the direction he wanted them to go.
The analogy I'll use is what I would do if my toddler had a fear of monsters under the bed. I could sit there and attempt to edit his understanding of reality; but that would be very difficult, and probably wouldn't help him with his fears at all. Nor would it affect the behavior I'm trying to change as a parent, which is, to keep him happily in his bed at bedtime, instead of constantly running out into the living room for reassurance.
So instead of attempting the near-impossible, I would probably say to him: "You don't have to be afraid of monsters under the bed. I am in charge here, and I will deal with them. Monsters are not allowed in your room, and I hereby issue a proclamation (raise voice here:): 'All monsters within hearing, begone or I will turn you into meatballs for tomorrow's spaghetti!' Ahem. Now you can go to bed without worrying anymore."
Someone analyzing my speech to my toddler might conclude that in fact I believed that monsters-under-the-bed actually exist. They would be in error. Taking the larger context (which we should always do), they would realize that I was adapting my speech to the needs of the toddler, which require me to take his fears seriously, as if the thing feared actually existed. Once the toddler grows up, we can have a more rational conversation. But for the moment, this is what is needed, and it's not going to mislead anyone who reads the situation contextually.
So with God. When he goes to war against the gods of Egypt, or the gods of Canaan, that doesn't mean those gods actually exist (although in the minds of the first hearers, they doubtless do); but it means that the concepts exist, and are scaring the first hearers, and need addressing by the one true God in a way that will meet the needs of the first hearers to grow in trust and to feel safe in God's hands. I'm not talking about lying, but rather about choosing your battles. When you're dealing with a crises, that's not the time to correct their metaphysics.
There's also the complication that supernatural beings who are godlike in some ways (power, mainly) do exist, and doubtless WERE fucking around with God's people, and doing it under the guise of Baal, Ashterah, and so forth. Teasing out the differences between a god and a demon masquerading as a god (which don't really exist)--well, that's a metaphysical bridge too far for most of the original hearers. God corrected that over time, but the situation-of-the-moment often demanded a different focus--reassurance, exhortation to faith, or what have you. So we're always looking at the context to determine why he said such-and-such.
Which brings us back to hermeneutics. It's an old, old rule that you have to consider context when you interpret a text, and that's what we've just been doing in a number of cases. Sola scriptura agrees with that just fine. To fail to consider context is to wrongly understand Scripture, and who wants to do that?
So, the infallibility of Scripture. Of course it's infallible. But what's not infallible is when someone yanks a bit out of context (which can be a very large context!) and then insists on considering it without the time, location, culture, etc. it came out of. They are likely to wind up with literal monsters under the bed, which is a consummation devoutly to be feared.
[I recently said to my husband, who was wrestling with some people in Bible class who were whining about the amount of thinking they were having to do: "God did tell us to love the Lord with all our minds. And that means nobody gets out of learning basic Bible interpretation skills." Sola scriptura is entirely consistent with learning proper interpretation skills--in fact, I could argue that refusing to do so is disrespect for the Scriptures.]
the Lutherans have never considered the canon of Scripture closed. Which means that theoretically another letter of Paul could turn up and have to be considered, though how we'd do it formally in a day when the church is so divided... yikes.
Oh, and Luther's dislike of James is not binding on anybody, as he himself acknowledged. He translated the thing when he did the German Bible, after all, because he knew very well that his own personal opinions are not binding on the church.
I’m not going to say too much about the analogy of us being toddlers! It’s actually helpful in putting us in a proper, humble, place. And like you know and I do, you can’t take analogies too far. But far enough is a good idea.
I once gave a talk about discipleship to my local congo, and towards the end said”Whatever you do, don’t take this as gospel. I’m like you, a learner”. I took out from under the lectern a UK drivers learner plate (basically a large capital L) to which I’d fastened a loop of string. Slung it round my neck and finished the talk, wearing it, by telling them that the word disciple (mathetes in Greek) means both follower and learner. Suffice to say that at my ripe old age of 82 I’m still a learner! I quote Bob Dylan about this “Those who are not busy being born are busy dying.” I’m still busy!
I’m tempted to start another tangent! My own research opened my eyes to some of the deeper aspects of what Jesus said about indissolubity. To put it briefly, given the times, divorce of a woman by a man reduced her to a parlous state and she had no real redress. His comments, which were to men, have to be seen in that light.
Yes indeed! All his comments on divorce have to be read in that light. For instance, the one about how a man who divorces a woman "makes her to commit adultery"--that's not a judgement, that's an observation, a plain statement of reality. Because the only two options she has are to remarry or to become a prostitute--and either choice involves having sexual union with a man who is not the man she first married. And it's not a choice, either. She has to eat, these are her only options, and so if that union is breached, it's entirely on her ex-husband who forced her into that situation.
Another important "light" to view these statements is the events described in Ezra/Nehemiah, which involve the purported demand by God that Israel "purify" itself by a mass divorce of all non-Israelite wives and driving them and their children out of the restored Jerusalem. This conflict between exclusion and inclusivity is a major debate between the books of the First Testament (team Ezra vs. team Ruth). Jesus seems to come down pretty decisively on the side of team Ruth and his statements on divorce could be read as saying "never again".
So with God. When he goes to war against the gods of Egypt, or the gods of Canaan, that doesn't mean those gods actually exist (although in the minds of the first hearers, they doubtless do); but it means that the concepts exist, and are scaring the first hearers, and need addressing by the one true God in a way that will meet the needs of the first hearers to grow in trust and to feel safe in God's hands. I'm not talking about lying, but rather about choosing your battles. When you're dealing with a crises, that's not the time to correct their metaphysics.
There's also the complication that supernatural beings who are godlike in some ways (power, mainly) do exist, and doubtless WERE fucking around with God's people, and doing it under the guise of Baal, Ashterah, and so forth. Teasing out the differences between a god and a demon masquerading as a god (which don't really exist)--well, that's a metaphysical bridge too far for most of the original hearers. God corrected that over time, but the situation-of-the-moment often demanded a different focus--reassurance, exhortation to faith, or what have you. So we're always looking at the context to determine why he said such-and-such.
What exactly is the distinction between a lesser god and "supernatural beings who are godlike in some ways"? It seems like a distinction without a difference, hinging mostly on semantics.
Yes. The Nehemiah event is quite horrible. If scripture is inspired and available amongst other things for reproof, I think it’s there as behaviour deserving reproof. . (I once said that in my local church at a bible study and got some funny looks. ….. )
I’m tempted to start another tangent! My own research opened my eyes to some of the deeper aspects of what Jesus said about indissolubity. To put it briefly, given the times, divorce of a woman by a man reduced her to a parlous state and she had no real redress. His comments, which were to men, have to be seen in that light.
Yes indeed! All his comments on divorce have to be read in that light. For instance, the one about how a man who divorces a woman "makes her to commit adultery"--that's not a judgement, that's an observation, a plain statement of reality. Because the only two options she has are to remarry or to become a prostitute--and either choice involves having sexual union with a man who is not the man she first married. And it's not a choice, either. She has to eat, these are her only options, and so if that union is breached, it's entirely on her ex-husband who forced her into that situation.
Matthew 5:32, though if you look at my explanation, you’ll see Jesus isn’t blaming the woman.
. But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Very quickly, and to illustrate what I mean. Yes, your church will have been established through the scriptures @Lamb Chopped but it will also have been 'founded' on the example of your husband and yourself as as faithful flesh and blood servants of the Living God.
The NT tells us that the Church is the 'pillar and ground of the Truth.' Sure, we can qualify that by saying it's the Church's proclamation of the Truth or its faithfulness to that Truth but we can't have one without the other.
Yes, the scriptures are all about Christ. We encounter Christ in the scriptures. You encountered Christ in the scriptures.
But we also encounter him though the Church, through his Body, 'the fulness of
the Lutherans have never considered the canon of Scripture closed. Which means that theoretically another letter of Paul could turn up and have to be considered, though how we'd do it formally in a day when the church is so divided... yikes.
Oh, and Luther's dislike of James is not binding on anybody, as he himself acknowledged. He translated the thing when he did the German Bible, after all, because he knew very well that his own personal opinions are not binding on the church.
I once asked the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware what would happen if another Pauline Epistle turned up which scholars could demonstrate was genuine.
He said that theoretically it could be added to the canon but only through an Ecumenical Council and indeed wider consultation with the RCs and Protestants.
I'll come back to you on some other 'sola scriptura' issues when I have time. Meanwhile, I am certainly not dismissive of your particular experience and testimony. Far from it.
I would imagine that it's unusual though and that generally people are 'socialised' into the Kingdom.
But God isn't bound by what 'generally' happens of course.
The only comment I'd make at this stage is - as you'd expect - that the scriptures 'come out of' community.
The Hebrew scriptures came out of a particular faith community with all its tussles and disagreements - the faith community of Israel.
Likewise the New Testament. It doesn't 'precede' the Church. The scriptures came out of the faith community which recognised Jesus as the Christ and many of them were written to convince others that this was the case.
I rightly get castigated for my emojis but I'm making a serious point here and whilst it's not one that is completely overlooked I think it can be elided to the extent that we see a rift developing between the scriptures and the Church.
The classic con evo response to this is that it was the content of the scriptures - the call from christ to follow him, the apostolic preaching of the gospel, the voice from the burning bush etc. That gave birth to the community of the church.
The westminster confession iirc uses the phrase that scripture was written by "holy men and the holy spirit" to acknowledge the duel authorship of the bible - the community is acknowledged but not in and of itself authoritive in this view.
The 39 articles seem to view the creeds as a distillation of biblical theology as they may be proved by sure warrant of scriptures or words to that effect (quoting from memory).
Ahem... I think you'll find that the story of the Burning Bush is in the Old Testament ...
The 'content of the scriptures' came out of what happened in the early Church. People writing down what had been passed on verbally about the teachings and ministry of Christ. The NT arose out of that. It wasn't that someone wrote this stuff down and the Church started from that point. The Church was already underway before the NT was written. It was written as part of the ongoing activity of the Church. The Church wrote the Bible. The individuals who wrote the NT were Christians and part of the Church - which incidentally is referred to in the NT as 'the pillar and ground of Truth.'
The Church preserved and passed on the teachings of Christ and writing them down was part of that process, not something distinct from it.
Now, I know you aren't saying otherwise but the reason I keep saying this isn't because I have a wonky idea of what sola scriptura means, but because it is so easily overlooked by those who have a 'high' view of scripture and a 'low' view of the authority of the Church.
I'm saying it's both/and.
We can have a high view of scripture and a high ecclesiology in terms of recognising the conciliar and collegial authority of the Church. The two aren't mutually exclusive. We can't uncouple the Church from the scriptures nor the scriptures from the Church. Neither are stand-alone.
That doesn't mean that the scriptures can't 'speak' to people outside of an ecclesial context. Of course they can.
But the scriptures weren't written in a vacuum or canonised in a vacuum - and nobody here is saying that of course. However we cut it there's an ongoing teaching and interpreting thing happening whichever Christian tradition we are part of.
Matthew 5:32, though if you look at my explanation, you’ll see Jesus isn’t blaming the woman.
. But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
I beg your pardon. I was limiting myself to Matthew 19 & Mark 10. How appallingly ignorant of me. Your exegesis is perfectly valid. And new to me.
I suppose an analogy would be the example @Lamb Chopped gave upthread. She observed that it was the scriptures that 'planted' and grew the congregation she and her husband established. Well yes, but it was through the agency of Lamb Chopped and her husband. The people did not just receive the scriptures they received Lamb Chopped and her husband and their ministry - who 'incarnated' the Gospel. They became the Gospel to those people. They walked it out and gave it legs.
I would suggest that it's the same with scripture and Tradition, or the relationship between Church and scripture. One doesn't operate without the other.
It's not a case of putting the Church over the Bible or the Bible over the Church.
No, it's a synergistic and symbiotic thing. Both/And.
That's how I see it and also, please excuse me, why I think many Protestant presentations of these things often miss the mark and miss the point by separating and filleting things that belong together not apart.
I suppose an analogy would be the example @Lamb Chopped gave upthread. She observed that it was the scriptures that 'planted' and grew the congregation she and her husband established. Well yes, but it was through the agency of Lamb Chopped and her husband. The people did not just receive the scriptures they received Lamb Chopped and her husband and their ministry - who 'incarnated' the Gospel. They became the Gospel to those people. They walked it out and gave it legs.
I would suggest that it's the same with scripture and Tradition, or the relationship between Church and scripture. One doesn't operate without the other.
It's not a case of putting the Church over the Bible or the Bible over the Church.
No, it's a synergistic and symbiotic thing. Both/And.
That's how I see it and also, please excuse me, why I think many Protestant presentations of these things often miss the mark and miss the point by separating and filleting things that belong together not apart.
Here I stand ...
The church is designed to embody the gospel - totally.
I wonder if one day @Lamb Chopped will be able to record or write down her full story.
May I ask what factors were influential in your moving from a more Protestant position to where you are now on this issue?
I’m not at all clear on whether it would ever be safe for me to publicly tell everything, since so much is confidential and/or puts living people in an embarrassing light. It may have to wait for the Kingdom, where i hope for a nice fire to sit by and a glass of wine as we hear everybody’s stories at last.
Good question, @Twangist and one I'll attempt to answer as straightforwardly as I can.
The Orthodox often use the analogy of Christ's 'seamless robe' when describing these things. Everything fits.
When I first attended an Orthodox service, back in 1997, I think, I was bemused by the ritualised aspects of course but I recognised it as a kind of 3D dramaturgical presentation of Nicene theology.
All the prayers, the ritualised actions, iconography and everything else all 'added up' to that if I can put it that way.
An analogy I'd use is that of an 'environment' in modern art terms, you know, where a conceptual artist creates some kind of immersive space which embodies their creative vision and conveys whatever mood or impression they wish the person entering that space to take away with them.
After much, much, much dialogue with Fr Gregory who used to be on these boards and interaction with other Orthodox clergy at conferences and so on, I gradually came round to an Orthodox position on these things.
A two-day study session with the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware at Fr Gregory's parish did much to cement that. Believe you me, I asked lots of awkward questions.
Bishop Kallistos 'modelled' an Orthodox approach to Bible study approaching the Gospel accounts of the Transfiguration that combined a close reading of the text - in a way I was accustomed to from my Protestant background, with Patristic commentary, iconography and discussion/contribution from the floor.
It felt very holistic.
Ok, one could argue that none of the insights contradicted or extended anything one might have got from a conventional Protestant Bible study on the NT passages. We could have taken a 'sola scriptura' approach to the passages had we been so inclined and arrived at the same or a similar place - and that place for me was one of awe and 'holy dread' as it were.
And sure, I can think of similar moments during Protestant Bible studies or during worship in my evangelical days. I'm not denying any of that.
But what I saw was that we don't receive the scriptures in isolation - unless we are in the kind of extreme circumstances that @Lamb Chopped described - but in fellowship and communion with the S/saints and all who have wrestled, meditated or contended with them since their ink dried on the page - or who discussed and debated them in oral form before they were ever written down.
I saw that we receive them liturgically through the calendar, iconographically - and in more than a visual teaching aid sense - and through hymnody and in commentary and very many forms.
They form part of Tradition and they inform that same Tradition. The whole thing is woven together as a seamless whole.
We can't tear patches off to suit ourselves. To do so is to ruin the robe.
A patch in and of itself may be of great value but it only fully makes sense as it were as part of the overall and original garment.
That was how I came to understand it. It's hard to articulate without sounding as if I'm disparaging other views or positions or caricaturing them in some way, which is not my intention.
My heart is 'strangely warmed' by biblical exegesis and application from whichever Christian tradition it comes. But it comes with and through a tradition or Tradition and not without it.
I could use icons as an analogy. We look through icons to the spiritual realities to which they point but we don't do so without them.
Likewise with scripture, we look at it through tradition or Tradition, not without it.
Matthew 5:32, though if you look at my explanation, you’ll see Jesus isn’t blaming the woman.
. But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
I beg your pardon. I was limiting myself to Matthew 19 & Mark 10. How appallingly ignorant of me. Your exegesis is perfectly valid. And new to me.
Protestant posters may still think my answer begs a lot of questions. Such as what should take precedence, scripture or Tradition.
I can understand that but all I can say is that these days it doesn't seem an appropriate question to ask. It'd be a bit like asking me which of my two daughters should take precedent over the other, or whether when I'm eating a meal the carrots should take precedence over the potatoes.
I understand the question and the concerns, of course, but in Orthodox terms it's a non-issue.
It's a bit like all the heat and sweat over faith and works or free will and predestination and whether it's 'once saved, always saved' and whether Paul's Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle of James contradict one another yadda yadda yadda ... it's not that the Orthodox don't understand these things but they aren't as big a deal because our hermeneutic is somewhat different and we approach these issues in a different way.
Thank goodness.
I don't want to go back to trying to make apparently contradictory verses fit or bust a gut trying to vire them into Calvin's schema or Luther's or whoever else's - with all due respect to them both.
That doesn't mean we don't have troubles of our own. We've got more than our fair share of those.
But mithering over the Five-Points of this or the 15 Points of that or the 26.4532 Points of Something Else isn't where we are at.
Trying to define or pin-point 'inerrancy' or 'infallibility', not where we are at. Sure, the various Protestant traditions are bigger and deeper than all that and I'm not saying that's all there is to them but from an Orthodox perspective it does look as if both Rome and Protestantism in their respective ways are trying to overly define everything or to put a label on it.
Please, I mean no offence with those observations. I can only speak as I find.
Comments
That’s going to be a tougher job than I thought because it’s the entire purpose of the whole of Book 4. And to say the least, there is a lot there! I’m going to go through Book 4 again, very carefully. And try to keep my comments to a reasonable length.
More later.
Well, shit.
"The Nick tempted me, and I ate."
Okay, what can I say?
What follows is not obviously the perspective of someone who's been to seminary or sat on the CTCR (Committee for Theology and Church Relations). But I'm pretty sure you've got no other LCMS Lutherans here. I'll do what I can.
This is what sola scriptura means to me.
It means, very personally speaking, that the Bible is where I met Jesus Christ. Very literally so; I was a child from an abusive family, uncared for, unnoticed, trying to survive. I was given a copy of the Bible when I was seven for Christmas. Nothing else was said to me. I got no religious training. My father was anti-Christian. Basically all I knew about Jesus was that it was a swear word. Oh, and that "cool people" had nothing to do with the Bible. (God knows where I picked that up.) You can see why I locked myself in the bathroom before I cracked the cover and started reading Genesis. I didn't want my family to find out.
So when it comes to the debate you all have been having about church vs. Scripture, for me it's no contest. Scripture was and is the foundation of my faith, and for me, the church grows out of Scripture. (Very literally so, if you consider the church my husband and I planted together.)
I'm rambling. I'm sorry.
I started reading the Bible as I would any book of fairy-tales, and somewhere before the Psalms, I became a believer. I can't point to a day or even year. I didn't get baptized because that would require telling someone what had happened to me. I didn't get into regular contact with any church until I was 12, and my mother saw an advertisement for confirmation classes and thought it was a Bible study, and signed us up. By that point I had finished reading Revelation and was starting over. Having a near-photographic memory meant that I went into that class armed for bear, so to speak--I had been reading in the epistles about the dangers of false teachers, I was terrified that these Lutherans (whom I knew nothing about) would turn out to be false teachers, and I was prepared to jump all over the pastor who was teaching if he said anything contrary to what I knew from the Scriptures. (spoiler: he didn't.)
About the only thing Confirmation classes taught me was the proper names for doctrines I already knew from the Scripture. I already knew the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, his deity and humanity, etc. etc. etc. None of that was new in any way, with one exception: I discovered that the humanity of Christ included a human soul/spirit, and not just body. It wasn't that I had ever disagreed with that, more that it had never occurred to me that humanity included a spiritual component. (I had previously figured spirits/souls/psyches were more or less all the same thing, across all existence, and therefore um, interchangeable? If you wanted to do incarnation, I mean.)
I give you this long and rambling story to show you the importance of the Scriptures to me, then and now. I was severely depressed by age three, and suicidal by age seven; and I was given no help at all in dealing with my issues, or with the child abuse. I truly think that, if I had not read that Bible, I wouldn't have made it to age 20.
(continued)
1. The Scriptures are God's word, God's message to the people of the world, whom he loves and wants to belong to him as his children, forever. The message of the whole Bible is Jesus Christ--everything is intended to point us to him. Because the Bible is written for such a huge and varied audience, there are going to be bits that speak to one audience much more clearly than to another. That's fine.
3. The Scriptures are the result of the Holy Spirit working in and through human beings. The human stamp is clear and obvious, and that's fine. The divine stamp is also obvious, at least to me, but I wouldn't expect it to be obvious to non-believers, why should it be?
4
5. The Scriptures are the first place to go when you want to know something about God, or how he deals with people. They take precedence over human philosophies and even over logic (see for example the Lutheran teaching on single predestination, which says that if you are saved, it's completely due to God's work, but if you are damned, it's entirely your own foolish fault. Not logical, I know, but it's what we see in Scripture.)
7. In a conflict between the church and the Scriptures, the Scriptures win.
9. In a conflict between me and the Scriptures, the Scriptures win.
11. In a conflict between Jesus and... oh come on, there is NO WAY he's going to get into a conflict with his own Scriptures! That's just silly.
13. If, per impossibile, you could PROVE a conflict between Jesus and the Scriptures, the first thing we would do is go looking for the error in the way we're handling the text. Because we can and do admit that there can be errors in translation, in explanation, and even in transmission (copying) of the original autograph texts. We make use of textual science (aka lower criticism) to avoid these errors as much as possible; but none of us are going to look at (say) the current ESV text and swear to you that there isn't a single error in it. We'll do that with the autographs, if we could possibly get hold of them; but there's no likelihood of that.
15. Scripture is not equally clear to all people on all points at all times. It can be downright murky in places. That's why we have education, yes? And the original languages, and textual studies, and archaeology, and anthropology, etc. etc. etc. It is indeed possible for someone to come to a full-fledged, Trinitarian, orthodox and informed Christian faith from nothing but the Bible (I did); but it is not ideal. And given human beings, it's entirely possible that they (we) can take something and twist it up.
17. That's also one reason we have the church, because the Spirit lives in Christ's people, and that's who you consult if you are having trouble understanding a particular passage, and the languages etc. are not being sufficient help. It is not ideal to have a lone ranger Christian or a lone ranger interpreter of Scripture, because we are broken human beings, and we all fuck up in many ways.
19. Points 5, 8, and 9 means I need to cultivate humility. Humility first of all toward the Scriptures--if I don't understand why God said something, I don't get to change it to suit my own notions--or my desire to fit in, or to spare myself embarrassment or any other trouble.
21. The same points mean I need to cultivate humility and charity also toward other human beings, including those with whom I have disagreements on Scriptural issues. And since Scripture teaches me that all believers in Jesus are my brothers and sisters, that means I have to bend over backward to help them and care for them, regardless of our disagreements on various issues--including some that are frankly scary in how deep they go. (I'm thinking now of a Oneness Pentecostal my husband is helping to navigate difficulties in running an elder care center. We can't do anything that would make it look like we signed up to her view of the Trinity, but there's nothing to stop us caring for the sick and disabled, offering cultural advice, etc. etc. etc.)
23. There's no need to defend the Bible, or defend God, or defend orthodoxy or orthopraxis. God doesn't need my help to do any of that. My job is to get on with staying faithful in my own life, and when possible, to pass along these gifts to other people. Being obnoxious for Jesus is not a spiritual gift. Those who do such things are in my opinion betraying a lack of faith in the position they claim to hold. If they were truly convinced, why would they be so defensive? Truth will out, in the long run.
Sorry for the length.
I was told that the reason for that was to ensure his listeners thought of the Spirit as a person and not as a thing.
.
Me too. Rather than as an ontological declaration about divine gender.
This appears to be a consensus.
We overlap in rationality before or after, regardless of, belief.
Thanks for that, particularly given the pressure of your present circumstances. Lots of common ground between us re personal meaning, Lamb Chopped.
Re Jesus and the scriptures, a question or two.
When Jesus says, in the Sermon on the Mount, “You have head it said ….. but I say unto you.” Do you think that is always merely necessary correction of human interpretation? One of the most famous comments “love your enemies”is not something I find stated directly, or even implied, in the OT.
I suspect there is a difference between us in this sense. I see an evolution of understanding in scripture of various things; for example, the nature of God is not presented monotheistically throughout the OT. There is movement between “no other Gods before me” and “I am the Lord and there is no other”. Also there is a development of ethical understanding, probably best summarised as the meaning of love, both in God, for God, and for others. It’s hard for me to see how all of scripture is univocal on those issues, for example. To make it clear, I don’t see that as a straight line, that the later is always more true than the earlier. There is some wandering about!
I suspect we are in complete agreement about how we, as Christians, see what is true about those two issues (monotheism and love). But I’d rather say that there is evidence in scripture of the journey towards understanding of God’s people. No doubt you can sense my nonconformist conscience! I worry about the “all scripture” assertion of infallibility. From my own fallible understanding of course!
I find it implied in normal social discourse in the Iron Age scriptures. And beyond. It's been human normal for at least 3,000 years. And therefore 30,000, 300,000.
Leviticus 19 is limited by “ among your people”, isn’t it? It certainly doesn’t exclude hatred for enemies who are not “our people”. The “Councils of Wisdom” is indeed a valid precursor but it is not a part of the Wisdom books in the OT. And we’re discussing scripture.
The only comment I'd make at this stage is - as you'd expect - that the scriptures 'come out of' community.
The Hebrew scriptures came out of a particular faith community with all its tussles and disagreements - the faith community of Israel.
Likewise the New Testament. It doesn't 'precede' the Church. The scriptures came out of the faith community which recognised Jesus as the Christ and many of them were written to convince others that this was the case.
I rightly get castigated for my emojis but I'm making a serious point here and whilst it's not one that is completely overlooked I think it can be elided to the extent that we see a rift developing between the scriptures and the Church.
Yes, it's one of these both/and things ... the Church through the scriptures and the scriptures through the Church but we need a balanced centre of gravity here.
Others will think my centre of gravity is off kilter of course.
The Jewish faith community. The Christian faith community. The 'Old Testament Church' as it were and the New.
The boundary of authoritative sacred writings was another issue of dispute. Even in the Reformation, Martin Luther opened the can of worms of relative value with his limited approval of the letter of James.
All scripture is inspired? Which scripture? And to a greater or lesser degree of usefulness? These questions have been with us from the very beginning, and still continue.
Indeed, but in ordinary social discourse, your enemy is of your people, your neighbour, your family. And scripture is nothing special in this regard. Jesus wasn't addressing the military or even the citizenry in how to behave in warfare. Love the invader coming at you with a sword isn't in there is it?
Perhaps we can say that the statement widened the scope of compassion any limits to that, so far as armed, invading, agressors are concerned, has been a subject of vexed discussion ever since. The whole “just war” thing. Two of the founders of my local congo (now passed on) were convinced conscientious objectors who refused to take up arms.
A tangent too far? I think I’ll open another thread.
The Orthodox Church did not find it necessary to formally define the Canon of Scripture until 1672 (Council of Jerusalem), where the need for a decision arose out of discussions with Western churches.
I'm going to do just a little at a time with all these interesting things as I have a meeting in a minute or so, but will start by noting that Jesus himself made it clear that the Law as given to Moses was never intended to be God's ultimate statement of right and wrong. Look at the passage on divorce. I'm using Matthew 19:
What this says to me is that God himself is practical, and realized that if he set the bar too high, the people of Israel would give up completely on any attempt to mend their lives or treat one another decently. So instead of saying "no divorce," he says, "If you're going to divorce (because of course you will, there's not a chance in hell that I could get you to avoid that entirely), AT LEAST give the woman a certificate of divorce so she can prove she is free to remarry. Don't jerk her around by claiming you're divorced when you don't want to support her, but still married when you want to interfere in her future relationships." (see "agunot" for an example of just this kind of jerkery in the 21st century.)
What this means to me is that when I read the Law (or any other prescriptive passage), I need to ask the question: Is this in fact what God intends for me now? For them only? For all eternity? and so on and so forth.
We see Jesus doing the same sort of thing in Matthew 5-7, where he ratchets up the expectation of the Law to unbearable heights. IMHO anybody who reads THAT and thinks they can still earn God's favor through living a perfect life is ... well, seriously deluded.
I think Paul handles slavery in much the same way.
More later.
I’m tempted to start another tangent! My own research opened my eyes to some of the deeper aspects of what Jesus said about indissolubity. To put it briefly, given the times, divorce of a woman by a man reduced her to a parlous state and she had no real redress. His comments, which were to men, have to be seen in that light.
The classic con evo response to this is that it was the content of the scriptures - the call from christ to follow him, the apostolic preaching of the gospel, the voice from the burning bush etc. That gave birth to the community of the church.
The westminster confession iirc uses the phrase that scripture was written by "holy men and the holy spirit" to acknowledge the duel authorship of the bible - the community is acknowledged but not in and of itself authoritive in this view.
The 39 articles seem to view the creeds as a distillation of biblical theology as they may be proved by sure warrant of scriptures or words to that effect (quoting from memory).
I think that’s true, but so is this.
I do know that there were differences of understanding, both of inclusion and also the value of some documents not on the lists (e.g the Infancy Gospel of James). The need for precision over the canon was less important in those days than the clarifications of Orthodox doctrine arising out of Tradition. Which of course included the available documents concerning the apostolic faith once given.
The boundaries of scripture were much more important to the Protestants because of their belief that Scripture stood above both Tradition and Church Authority. The development and application of Church Authority was precisely what they were protesting about.
Yes indeed! All his comments on divorce have to be read in that light. For instance, the one about how a man who divorces a woman "makes her to commit adultery"--that's not a judgement, that's an observation, a plain statement of reality. Because the only two options she has are to remarry or to become a prostitute--and either choice involves having sexual union with a man who is not the man she first married. And it's not a choice, either. She has to eat, these are her only options, and so if that union is breached, it's entirely on her ex-husband who forced her into that situation.
Okay, the meeting is over and I'll indulge myself for a moment before I start doing what I ought to be doing. I want to take your second paragraph. Well, third...
You say you see an evolution in understanding as Scripture goes on. I would take that a slightly different direction. IMHO, the people's understanding of reality (including whether other gods actually existed or not) grew over time; God was always aware of their current level of understanding, and addressed them accordingly. To be sure, he could have said, "Stop everything. Let's discuss this idea some of you have, that other gods have an actual existence--or at least you talk like they did. Repeat after me: There is one God only..." He could have done that, but by and large, he didn't. He seems to have been content with shaping them over a long period of time in the direction he wanted them to go.
The analogy I'll use is what I would do if my toddler had a fear of monsters under the bed. I could sit there and attempt to edit his understanding of reality; but that would be very difficult, and probably wouldn't help him with his fears at all. Nor would it affect the behavior I'm trying to change as a parent, which is, to keep him happily in his bed at bedtime, instead of constantly running out into the living room for reassurance.
So instead of attempting the near-impossible, I would probably say to him: "You don't have to be afraid of monsters under the bed. I am in charge here, and I will deal with them. Monsters are not allowed in your room, and I hereby issue a proclamation (raise voice here:): 'All monsters within hearing, begone or I will turn you into meatballs for tomorrow's spaghetti!' Ahem. Now you can go to bed without worrying anymore."
Someone analyzing my speech to my toddler might conclude that in fact I believed that monsters-under-the-bed actually exist. They would be in error. Taking the larger context (which we should always do), they would realize that I was adapting my speech to the needs of the toddler, which require me to take his fears seriously, as if the thing feared actually existed. Once the toddler grows up, we can have a more rational conversation. But for the moment, this is what is needed, and it's not going to mislead anyone who reads the situation contextually.
So with God. When he goes to war against the gods of Egypt, or the gods of Canaan, that doesn't mean those gods actually exist (although in the minds of the first hearers, they doubtless do); but it means that the concepts exist, and are scaring the first hearers, and need addressing by the one true God in a way that will meet the needs of the first hearers to grow in trust and to feel safe in God's hands. I'm not talking about lying, but rather about choosing your battles. When you're dealing with a crises, that's not the time to correct their metaphysics.
There's also the complication that supernatural beings who are godlike in some ways (power, mainly) do exist, and doubtless WERE fucking around with God's people, and doing it under the guise of Baal, Ashterah, and so forth. Teasing out the differences between a god and a demon masquerading as a god (which don't really exist)--well, that's a metaphysical bridge too far for most of the original hearers. God corrected that over time, but the situation-of-the-moment often demanded a different focus--reassurance, exhortation to faith, or what have you. So we're always looking at the context to determine why he said such-and-such.
Which brings us back to hermeneutics. It's an old, old rule that you have to consider context when you interpret a text, and that's what we've just been doing in a number of cases. Sola scriptura agrees with that just fine. To fail to consider context is to wrongly understand Scripture, and who wants to do that?
So, the infallibility of Scripture. Of course it's infallible. But what's not infallible is when someone yanks a bit out of context (which can be a very large context!) and then insists on considering it without the time, location, culture, etc. it came out of. They are likely to wind up with literal monsters under the bed, which is a consummation devoutly to be feared.
[I recently said to my husband, who was wrestling with some people in Bible class who were whining about the amount of thinking they were having to do: "God did tell us to love the Lord with all our minds. And that means nobody gets out of learning basic Bible interpretation skills." Sola scriptura is entirely consistent with learning proper interpretation skills--in fact, I could argue that refusing to do so is disrespect for the Scriptures.]
the Lutherans have never considered the canon of Scripture closed. Which means that theoretically another letter of Paul could turn up and have to be considered, though how we'd do it formally in a day when the church is so divided... yikes.
Oh, and Luther's dislike of James is not binding on anybody, as he himself acknowledged. He translated the thing when he did the German Bible, after all, because he knew very well that his own personal opinions are not binding on the church.
I’m not going to say too much about the analogy of us being toddlers! It’s actually helpful in putting us in a proper, humble, place. And like you know and I do, you can’t take analogies too far. But far enough is a good idea.
I once gave a talk about discipleship to my local congo, and towards the end said”Whatever you do, don’t take this as gospel. I’m like you, a learner”. I took out from under the lectern a UK drivers learner plate (basically a large capital L) to which I’d fastened a loop of string. Slung it round my neck and finished the talk, wearing it, by telling them that the word disciple (mathetes in Greek) means both follower and learner. Suffice to say that at my ripe old age of 82 I’m still a learner! I quote Bob Dylan about this “Those who are not busy being born are busy dying.” I’m still busy!
Another important "light" to view these statements is the events described in Ezra/Nehemiah, which involve the purported demand by God that Israel "purify" itself by a mass divorce of all non-Israelite wives and driving them and their children out of the restored Jerusalem. This conflict between exclusion and inclusivity is a major debate between the books of the First Testament (team Ezra vs. team Ruth). Jesus seems to come down pretty decisively on the side of team Ruth and his statements on divorce could be read as saying "never again".
What exactly is the distinction between a lesser god and "supernatural beings who are godlike in some ways"? It seems like a distinction without a difference, hinging mostly on semantics.
He didn't say that.
The NT tells us that the Church is the 'pillar and ground of the Truth.' Sure, we can qualify that by saying it's the Church's proclamation of the Truth or its faithfulness to that Truth but we can't have one without the other.
Yes, the scriptures are all about Christ. We encounter Christ in the scriptures. You encountered Christ in the scriptures.
But we also encounter him though the Church, through his Body, 'the fulness of
I once asked the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware what would happen if another Pauline Epistle turned up which scholars could demonstrate was genuine.
He said that theoretically it could be added to the canon but only through an Ecumenical Council and indeed wider consultation with the RCs and Protestants.
I'll come back to you on some other 'sola scriptura' issues when I have time. Meanwhile, I am certainly not dismissive of your particular experience and testimony. Far from it.
I would imagine that it's unusual though and that generally people are 'socialised' into the Kingdom.
But God isn't bound by what 'generally' happens of course.
Ahem... I think you'll find that the story of the Burning Bush is in the Old Testament ...
The 'content of the scriptures' came out of what happened in the early Church. People writing down what had been passed on verbally about the teachings and ministry of Christ. The NT arose out of that. It wasn't that someone wrote this stuff down and the Church started from that point. The Church was already underway before the NT was written. It was written as part of the ongoing activity of the Church. The Church wrote the Bible. The individuals who wrote the NT were Christians and part of the Church - which incidentally is referred to in the NT as 'the pillar and ground of Truth.'
The Church preserved and passed on the teachings of Christ and writing them down was part of that process, not something distinct from it.
Now, I know you aren't saying otherwise but the reason I keep saying this isn't because I have a wonky idea of what sola scriptura means, but because it is so easily overlooked by those who have a 'high' view of scripture and a 'low' view of the authority of the Church.
I'm saying it's both/and.
We can have a high view of scripture and a high ecclesiology in terms of recognising the conciliar and collegial authority of the Church. The two aren't mutually exclusive. We can't uncouple the Church from the scriptures nor the scriptures from the Church. Neither are stand-alone.
That doesn't mean that the scriptures can't 'speak' to people outside of an ecclesial context. Of course they can.
But the scriptures weren't written in a vacuum or canonised in a vacuum - and nobody here is saying that of course. However we cut it there's an ongoing teaching and interpreting thing happening whichever Christian tradition we are part of.
I beg your pardon. I was limiting myself to Matthew 19 & Mark 10. How appallingly ignorant of me. Your exegesis is perfectly valid. And new to me.
Or recognising that it's a both/and thing.
Horde, meet cart. Cart, meet horse.
Tradition is what yokes them together. 😉
Reason is the chap driving the cart and experience is....
I would suggest that it's the same with scripture and Tradition, or the relationship between Church and scripture. One doesn't operate without the other.
It's not a case of putting the Church over the Bible or the Bible over the Church.
No, it's a synergistic and symbiotic thing. Both/And.
That's how I see it and also, please excuse me, why I think many Protestant presentations of these things often miss the mark and miss the point by separating and filleting things that belong together not apart.
Here I stand ...
The church is designed to embody the gospel - totally.
I wonder if one day @Lamb Chopped will be able to record or write down her full story.
May I ask what factors were influential in your moving from a more Protestant position to where you are now on this issue?
The Orthodox often use the analogy of Christ's 'seamless robe' when describing these things. Everything fits.
When I first attended an Orthodox service, back in 1997, I think, I was bemused by the ritualised aspects of course but I recognised it as a kind of 3D dramaturgical presentation of Nicene theology.
All the prayers, the ritualised actions, iconography and everything else all 'added up' to that if I can put it that way.
An analogy I'd use is that of an 'environment' in modern art terms, you know, where a conceptual artist creates some kind of immersive space which embodies their creative vision and conveys whatever mood or impression they wish the person entering that space to take away with them.
After much, much, much dialogue with Fr Gregory who used to be on these boards and interaction with other Orthodox clergy at conferences and so on, I gradually came round to an Orthodox position on these things.
A two-day study session with the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware at Fr Gregory's parish did much to cement that. Believe you me, I asked lots of awkward questions.
Bishop Kallistos 'modelled' an Orthodox approach to Bible study approaching the Gospel accounts of the Transfiguration that combined a close reading of the text - in a way I was accustomed to from my Protestant background, with Patristic commentary, iconography and discussion/contribution from the floor.
It felt very holistic.
Ok, one could argue that none of the insights contradicted or extended anything one might have got from a conventional Protestant Bible study on the NT passages. We could have taken a 'sola scriptura' approach to the passages had we been so inclined and arrived at the same or a similar place - and that place for me was one of awe and 'holy dread' as it were.
And sure, I can think of similar moments during Protestant Bible studies or during worship in my evangelical days. I'm not denying any of that.
But what I saw was that we don't receive the scriptures in isolation - unless we are in the kind of extreme circumstances that @Lamb Chopped described - but in fellowship and communion with the S/saints and all who have wrestled, meditated or contended with them since their ink dried on the page - or who discussed and debated them in oral form before they were ever written down.
I saw that we receive them liturgically through the calendar, iconographically - and in more than a visual teaching aid sense - and through hymnody and in commentary and very many forms.
They form part of Tradition and they inform that same Tradition. The whole thing is woven together as a seamless whole.
We can't tear patches off to suit ourselves. To do so is to ruin the robe.
A patch in and of itself may be of great value but it only fully makes sense as it were as part of the overall and original garment.
That was how I came to understand it. It's hard to articulate without sounding as if I'm disparaging other views or positions or caricaturing them in some way, which is not my intention.
My heart is 'strangely warmed' by biblical exegesis and application from whichever Christian tradition it comes. But it comes with and through a tradition or Tradition and not without it.
I could use icons as an analogy. We look through icons to the spiritual realities to which they point but we don't do so without them.
Likewise with scripture, we look at it through tradition or Tradition, not without it.
No problem!
I can understand that but all I can say is that these days it doesn't seem an appropriate question to ask. It'd be a bit like asking me which of my two daughters should take precedent over the other, or whether when I'm eating a meal the carrots should take precedence over the potatoes.
I understand the question and the concerns, of course, but in Orthodox terms it's a non-issue.
It's a bit like all the heat and sweat over faith and works or free will and predestination and whether it's 'once saved, always saved' and whether Paul's Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle of James contradict one another yadda yadda yadda ... it's not that the Orthodox don't understand these things but they aren't as big a deal because our hermeneutic is somewhat different and we approach these issues in a different way.
Thank goodness.
I don't want to go back to trying to make apparently contradictory verses fit or bust a gut trying to vire them into Calvin's schema or Luther's or whoever else's - with all due respect to them both.
That doesn't mean we don't have troubles of our own. We've got more than our fair share of those.
But mithering over the Five-Points of this or the 15 Points of that or the 26.4532 Points of Something Else isn't where we are at.
Trying to define or pin-point 'inerrancy' or 'infallibility', not where we are at. Sure, the various Protestant traditions are bigger and deeper than all that and I'm not saying that's all there is to them but from an Orthodox perspective it does look as if both Rome and Protestantism in their respective ways are trying to overly define everything or to put a label on it.
Please, I mean no offence with those observations. I can only speak as I find.
Your journey is interesting. Do you see yourself still as a learner?