Biblical Interpretation

[ByzantineDixie]

Thank God he does not judge us on our orthodoxy, nor on our acts of piety but on the sole merit of the Crucified one.

Probably the single best thing I have read on this site in weeks. James, I agree with you about the Church and interpretation...what I haven't reconciled yet is how this works in the context of the historical failures. You can't simply brush off the errors of the Roman church which the BoC addresses. If you say the Church didn't interpret Scriptures incorrectly because the RCC no longer bore the Marks well OK...I understand that in theory but I am lost as to how that works in practice. Where did she hide until the reformation? And the more burning question for me now...where is she? I'd like to say she is visible in Orthodox Lutheranism but that's harder and harder to find.

Care to share your thoughts here?

Peace

Rose

 

[Kaitsu]

I doubt that this will be of any interest, but I'll put here my own thoughts on this, anyway.

I think that no matter what formula we might invent, interpretation is entirely the wrong approach. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a human process. The only process that works is understanding, not interpreting.

Understanding the bible is built on precisely the same mystery process as the Trinity 3 in 1, Jesus' all God/all human, the baptismal water, and the Eucaristic Body,blood/bread,wine.

The bible, in itself, is just a book containing a lot of words, like any other book. The written bible, by itself, is not free of errors, nor is it perfect. There are so many translations, so many versions, so many variations, that no one version can be held up as perfect. Equally, language is a living thing that changes with times, and so the literal meaning of the words also drift and need to be updated, and anyone who has translated documents will confirm that it is impossible to translate things perfectly because some words do not have a prefect counterpart in other languages. We need to look beyond the words themselves.

Just like the Sacraments, God's word is in the bible when it is combined with God himself. It is through prayer and the Spirit that God brings understanding to us of his Word. I do not mean that he speaks direct into one's ear, but uses many different ways to commúnicate his answers and we recognise them when we hear them if we are still in prayer. That is why constant prayer is such a vitally important "skill" to develop.

In my opinion, things go wrong when we try to analyse the bible technically and/or through mentally copy/pasting from various commentators. We end up with a Frankenstein mish/mash of half-truths cluttering our minds and forcing us to try and juggle them into some kind of rational construction that might possibly remain afloat whenever it is challenged. However, we then find ourselves becoming more and more closed-minded, and spending more and more time trying to defend and justify our own structure that we can no longer alter it whenever the Truth does come our way. We become prisoners of our own model. For example, I am sure there are some Lutherans on this site that, before posting anything, automatically check it through to make sure they are not conflicting with any standard Lutheran works. Maybe that's OK with Lutheran ) ), but other denominations surely do the same thing.

Another reason why we go wrong and end up interpreting instead of understanding is that we are too eager to know it all. God does not give us the Truth in one dose. We are in school and the lessons progress according to our own abilities and God's will. But we are too impatient for that. Hence, if we don't understand, for example, the 144,000, we grab all the commentaries and debate on the websites and eventually pick an answer that feels good and fits the rest of our model. We do not like to say "I don't know".

Actually, I believe that commentaries, web sites, and reading the early Church Fathers, etc, are all ways that God communicates and opens our understanding, but it must be led by God through prayer and not by rushing off on our own. There are a million different directions that we can be led in when following publications, literature and websites, and we can easily end up running round and round in circles, with no clear cohesive understanding left anymore.

The bible is just a Book. But when it is combined with the power of the Spirit it becomes God Word in a book - Like the water of Baptism, like the bread and wine of Communion, why should we be surprised about that?

But I guess that is not really very helpful!

Keith

 

[BigNorsk]

I will share even though I am sure there will be those who would prepare the stake and the wood for burning my words.

Where is the true Church? The Church is wherever people have truly received God. As such, the Church is much more widespread than many would want to accept in their belief or practice.

We teach that God's grace is a free gift given not on account of works or deeds or lawgiving or any other thing that a person can do to merit grace. Yet, in our practices we want to limit God through our knowledge, we want to say if someone else doesn't know everything I know, they must not be a Christian. Though people say that grace is greater than knowledge, they live as if knowledge is greater than grace. Is knowledge bad? No, but we are not saved by knowledge. So we must live a life where even while trying to transmit God's knowledge to others, we accept his decisions on whom he bestows his grace. Do we accept a believer who disagrees with us as a brother in Christ, as another member of his body. Often, the answer is no. We reject him because of his knowledge. So the body which Christ recognizes is of grace, but the body we recognize tends to be of knowledge. Is it any wonder that the body made up of knowledge has trouble functioning?

Do I say knowledge is bad? No, as bad as elevating knowledge above grace is ignoring knowledge to seek experiences. Many now are elevating experience as the greatest thing. Why is God's message true-because it makes us feel good-right? Let's not spend any time reading scripture, just slay a couple more people "in the spirit." All that teaching stuff is just so confusing anyway.

We have the problem of sinful license. People who think it is their Christian freedom to behave as the worst heathen sinner. How many Church members will cheat on their taxes this April 15? How many speed down the highway? How many reserve sex only for marriage? Now it can be understood that people who have never received Christ could be that way, how could they be otherwise? For they have no helper, it is just them with their sinful nature alive and powerful. Yet how can people, the blessed of God, do so much evil. Do they not accept his help?

On the other side stand the law-givers. People who received salvation by grace, now trying to perfect it in the works of the law. Paul warned us again and again not to do that. He even hinted that those who do so receive God's grace in vain. Law-givers think that if there is too much sin, we need more law. Yet what does the Bible teach, it teaches that law increases sin.

A typical scenario is this. A pastor, seeing that not everyone is living right, determines to convict those who hear him of their sins. He preaches law, typical sermon is something like "God's perfect Law." By preaching out of balance, the Law has it's God ordained effect. It convicts them, it strengthens sin even causing sin to increase great is the anguish, the heartache, the wounds. Yet what happens, does the pastor apply the healing Gospel of Grace? Does he show people how Jesus is the way out of their sins, out of the hurt and heartache. No he sees the sin and applies more law. People can no longer take it, they leave the congregation. They have no love. They despair. It is as though they are the people of Israel wandering in the desert, except they have no manna, no water, no hope. There are a few that manage to survive under this system. The dried-up overly pious lawgivers. Within the community, they are known as hypocrites, because noone can live the life required in that congregation.

There is another way God's Church is hidden. A pastor recognizes that believers are not under the law. He preaches freedom, he gives his congregation sermons from whatever is on the best sellers list this week. There is nothing evil, nothing not forgiven. Those already part of the Church don't do too badly, but there's a lot of problem with new people. You can't tell anything has happened to them at all. They live their old lives only now they stamp everything Christian. Often these congregations do real well getting new members. Yet you find they lack depth, they lack substance. Often people pay no attention to sin in their lives. Within the community, they are known as hypocrites because there is no difference between them and those not going to the church, except often business connections received at church.

I use the pastors as the scapegoats, yet you know what? It is not the pastors fault at all. It is the congregation's fault. It is just exactly when the congregation lays back and quits giving of themselves that the congregation dies. Sitting back and waiting for the pastor, or the paid staff, to do everything is the greatest danger in the church. There is not a single style of church government where the congregation doesn't control the pastor, unless they don't want to.

Yet with all the ways there are for people to stray from the path still there are those that find it. Knowledgable, but not emotionally dead, they have religious experiences, yet they don't require them everyday, they know the law, but they live by grace, they are free, but they don't use it to sin. I believe such people have been with us throughout history. They often aren't written about or make their mark on recorded history. It is easy to miss many of them that live in our same towns today, how much easier is it to miss them in history that tends towards recording extremism. You see even this message is that way, did I spend most of it telling you of the saints who are such a blessing to me, no I wrote about the mistakes others make. So today, I guess I belong in the law-giver paragraph.

I wonder, if we each wrote messages about how God used someone to bless someone else what this board would be like?

Marv

 

[Phoebe]

That's my answer, and I'm stickin' to it. The Holy Spirit is the one that I trust to interpret for me.

Those last two words are where we get into a problem. It is a relatively recent phenomenon -- and I think a not-necessarily-Christian phenomenon -- to view the interpretation of Scripture as an individual matter. In fact, Scripture itself warns against it. So yes, the Holy Spirit is our interpreter. But that comes in the framework of the Church. As Pastor William Weedon once said, "Holy Scripture points us to the faith of the Fathers, and the Fathers (in their writings) point us back to Scripture."

All sorts of people claim the Holy Spirit has interpreted Holy Scripture for them. But they come up with all sorts of weird interpretations that clearly cannot be from the Holy Spirit.

This must be why we have so many denominations. RCC, Lutheranism, Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist...




If we aren't to have individual understanding, and the Church is always correct on interpretation, why have our own copies of the Bible?

 

[Kaitsu]

Big Norsk:


I thought that was a great post - I mean a really great post. I kept a copy of it. I couldn't rep you because apparently I have been a bit mean and haven't been spreading it around enough to able to give it to you!!

Although I have always belonged to the Lutheran church since faith awoke in me (which was about 4 years back), I joined it by chance and not by design -it just happened to be the local church. But I refused to study Lutheran beliefs, or any other, and insisted on only reading the bible direct (I'd never read it before) and prayer. It is only over the last month that I have started to open up and study Lutheran documents because I started to see how much concurrence there actually was between my church and my own developing faith - mainly since joining and participating on this site (my original icon was simply Christian).

I truly agree with you about the true church of Christ flowing through all denominations, passing through doctrinal barriers like Christ into the room full of the apostles. They carry no labels, only a cross. They hold the bible as the direct Word of God. They love God, they love all humankind. They have no care for the things of this world, yet they lack nothing.

One of the biggest problems that I see in our churches here is that the pastors chase the congregations instead of standing by the Word. They provide feel-good occasions instead of learning. Although they follow the church year and topics, the reading are "edited" to leave out bits that the congregation might find uncomfortable. Sermons are left more as waffly questions rather than definitive instructions. The pastor prefers to remain non-commital on any difficult questions rather than end up in trouble with his superiors.

But the Christians of Christ's Church do not have any problem with this because they read their bible daily, they pray constantly, and they listen to God and they strive to obey him.

Thanks for the sharing.

Keith

 

[Qoheleth]

Holy Scripture is the norma normans-- the ruling rule, and the
Confessions are the norma normata-- the ruled rule. The latter decides whether the person has clearly understood the true doctrines of Scripture. We don't play one off against the other


Scripture is never interpreted in a vacuum. Tradition plays a significant role. One must distinguish Tradition from tradition though. The former refers to the life and working of the Holy Spirit in the church, including the right interpretation of the Scriptures. The latter refers to customs or habits that have grown up over time and so may be discarded.




Q

 

[JVAC]

Probably the single best thing I have read on this site in weeks. James, I agree with you about the Church and interpretation...what I haven't reconciled yet is how this works in the context of the historical failures. You can't simply brush off the errors of the Roman church which the BoC addresses. If you say the Church didn't interpret Scriptures incorrectly because the RCC no longer bore the Marks well OK...I understand that in theory but I am lost as to how that works in practice. Where did she hide until the reformation? And the more burning question for me now...where is she? I'd like to say she is visible in Orthodox Lutheranism but that's harder and harder to find.

Care to share your thoughts here?

Peace

Rose

Since the condition on our being the Church is two fold, Sacramentaly and through the Word, it is possible that there are Churchmen outside the Church. That is to say baptism is done right by every denomination if it includes the Word and Water, and so it is possible for them all to be members of the Church, while still not possessing all the truths the Church teaches. I think this was true in the Middle Ages. While we also must contend that not all congregations were as Roman as one might think, various presbyters and Bishops taught different things in different ways and as long as they paid up every now and then Rome was fine about it.

Yet it is still possible that the true interpretation could have been lost among the majority of congregations I don't believe it was lost in every congregation. That being said, it is still possible for a church to leave the teachings of the Fathers, as we can see in the middle ages, yet when that church comes back to the Faith of the Fathers, they begin to be again the Church. While congregants no matter what will be able to boldly say, as Luther did, "BUT I AM BAPTIZED", they might not all claim the true interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, which are taught rightly in the True Church. Sacramentally I am the brother of the baptist, the Catholic, the Anabaptist, the Presbyterian, the Methodist, etc. but in the Truth of the Word I may not be.

I don't have these crazy opinions that there is a 100% correct denomination, but I do believe that if someone keeps the Faith of the Fathers, then they can claim to be truly catholic and apostolic. In my opinion, the Lutheran fathers came very close in the BoC (yet of course I could never concede that the episcopate is of no value, as it sometimes may assert. And the number of Sacraments is a subject only because of semantics.). It is thus possible for me to agree on catholic interpretation with people outside my denomination, but that interpretation will always be inside the True Church, because that interpretation is apostolic.

I hope this made it somewhat clearer! Have a great day.

The Lord Bless you and Keep you!
-James

 

[Qoheleth]

In my opinion, the Lutheran fathers came very close in the BoC (yet of course I could never concede that the episcopate is of no value, as it sometimes may assert. And the number of Sacraments is a subject only because of semantics.). It is thus possible for me to agree on catholic interpretation with people outside my denomination, but that interpretation will always be inside the True Church, because that interpretation is apostolic.

Very...Interesting and perceptive of you.

So you would believe that there are more than 3 sacraments? I do.

Also, do you see the role of the Bishops and so forth (episcopate) should be held as normative if seen in a collegial practice and not one of hierarchy?? I do.


Q

 

[night2day]

I think I'll stick with the Lutheran stance that Scripture interprets Scripture. It doesn't change, hasn't changed, and will never change.

I think this sums it quite well:

1 Corinthians 14:33a
"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace..."

Since God's the sole author of the Scriptures, He's not the one causing confusion.

 

[JVAC]

Very...Interesting and perceptive of you.

So you would believe that there are more than 3 sacraments? I do.

Also, do you see the role of the Bishops and so forth (episcopate) should be held as normative if seen in a collegial practice and not one of hierarchy?? I do.


Q

With respect to the Sacraments , I whole heartedly recognize the three enumerated in the AC and her Apology, that is, Baptism, the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, and Confession. Personally, I always thought of Confession as a Sacrament, because it is more of a continuation of Holy Baptism. When it comes to Unction I have no problem if people want to call it a Sacrament, it is a most beautiful ceremony that has been comended by the church from the beginning. Also, when it comes to Holy Orders, I think it should be maintained as a Sacrament because it promotes tranquility in the Church and continues the tradition set down by the Apostles. However, Marriage I am not so sure about, for I cannot understand the "Grace" that is given. I do note that the two are made one but I wouldn't call that "grace". So marriage for me is still up in the air, however, since currently I am in the ELCA synod I hold there to be three Holy Sacraments (as confessed in the BoC) while keeping the others as Holy Rites, though I would prefer they had Sacramental recognition.

When it comes to the Episcopate , I think it is the most perfect form of governance for the Church catholic. I think that the early church is an awesome example of this. The bishop of an area should act as supreme shepherd of his area, and all bishops respectfully the same. They Presbytery should always be submissive to the bishop unless the bishop becomes apostate (and that is not their decision but the decision of neighboring Bishops). Many synods would be consolidated under a Metropolitan see for more efficiancy, yet no metropolitan see has supreme authority nor is any inerrant (Rome's mistake). The Augsburg Confession actually supports this idea of church governance.

So infact we do have this in common Qoheleth!

(I love these uber-cool smiley-faces)
The Lord bless you and Keep you in His grace!
-James

 

[filosofer]

If you don't mind, I'd like to respond to a few points.

I think that no matter what formula we might invent, interpretation is entirely the wrong approach. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a human process. The only process that works is understanding, not interpreting.

Actually not true. There is no understanding apart from interpretation. Otherwise we end up with "spirit-led my opinion is what counts" and it makes a mess of the text. TEXT > INTERPRETATION > UNDERSTANDING. It is the Holy Spirit who leads us to the text, into the text and out of the text. Over the decades I have met plenty of people who claim they have an "interpretation/understanding of the text" but it has no relationship to the text. "Riding the hobby horse" = "give me any text and I will teach/preach/understand it as supporting pre-millennial theology". Luther's rejoinder to Zwingli in 1529 is still pertinent to today: What does the text say?

The problem isn't interpretation it is bad interpretation.

The bible, in itself, is just a book containing a lot of words, like any other book..

This reflects the stance of Karl Barth and the neo-orthodox movement of the early 20th century, and very popular among evangelicals. This has never been the historic Lutheran understanding of the Bible.

The written bible, by itself, is not free of errors, nor is it perfect. There are so many translations, so many versions, so many variations, that no one version can be held up as perfect. Equally, language is a living thing that changes with times, and so the literal meaning of the words also drift and need to be updated, and anyone who has translated documents will confirm that it is impossible to translate things perfectly because some words do not have a prefect counterpart in other languages. We need to look beyond the words themselves.

The historic Lutheran position is that we never use any translation to determine doctrine nor settle doctrinal disputes. That is why Lutherans have required that those studying to be pastors know at least Greek and Hebrew. And it is the Greek/Hebrew text that has been passed on that is the word of God - it doesn't become the Word, it is the Word. (This is a major topic and may have to head in its own thread)

In my opinion, things go wrong when we try to analyse the bible technically and/or through mentally copy/pasting from various commentators. We end up with a Frankenstein mish/mash of half-truths cluttering our minds and forcing us to try and juggle them into some kind of rational construction that might possibly remain afloat whenever it is challenged. However, we then find ourselves becoming more and more closed-minded, and spending more and more time trying to defend and justify our own structure that we can no longer alter it whenever the Truth does come our way. We become prisoners of our own model. For example, I am sure there are some Lutherans on this site that, before posting anything, automatically check it through to make sure they are not conflicting with any standard Lutheran works. Maybe that's OK with Lutheran ( ), but other denominations surely do the same thing.

Actually things go wrong when we don't take the text seriously and wrestle through the technical issues. There is a very good reason why the ESV rendering of John 20:23 is wrong. It misses in the technical points of reflecting what the Greek text actually says. The Frankenstein is when people get some knowledge and then make claims about "this is what the Greek says" - in reality most people on messages boards such as this don't know enough Greek to put in a thimble. Following an interlinear text does not make one an expert in Greek.

Another reason why we go wrong and end up interpreting instead of understanding is that we are too eager to know it all. God does not give us the Truth in one dose. We are in school and the lessons progress according to our own abilities and God's will. But we are too impatient for that. Hence, if we don't understand, for example, the 144,000, we grab all the commentaries and debate on the websites and eventually pick an answer that feels good and fits the rest of our model. We do not like to say "I don't know".

I agree - but even worse is when people do not have the theological sense of the entire Scriptures. For example - what is the connection between Exodus 40, Leviticus 16, 23, Ezekiel 10, 40-48, John 1:14, 1 Cor 3, 6, Hebrews 7-10, Revelation 21/ And why are these important eschatological texts? Unless we study within the framework of the Biblical canon and text, and grasp the connection and themes running through the Word, we are prey to any hair-brained idea that people come up with.

The bible is just a Book. But when it is combined with the power of the Spirit it becomes God Word in a book

This is the classic statement of the Reformed, and especially Karl Barth and neo-orthodoxy. It is not the Lutheran understanding of the Word.

 

[Qoheleth]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

It is the Holy Spirit who leads us to the text, into the text and out of the text.[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]

[/font]


Third Article
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What does this mean?--Answer.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies ....[/font]


As we see, the interpretation of scripture is given by the Holy Spirit within the church.

The Holy Spirit calls us by the gospel, gathers us into the church, enlightens us with His gifts, and sanctifies and makes us Holy.

Q
​

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

Q? What parish do you go to? Yours or my old parish? lol

 

[Qoheleth]

Q? What parish do you go to? Yours or my old parish? lol

LoL, I agree. My parish recites saying , "one Holy catholic church..."

I just happen to copy and paste this version.

Q

 

[Kaitsu]

There is no understanding apart from interpretation. Otherwise we end up with "spirit-led my opinion is what counts" and it makes a mess of the text. TEXT > INTERPRETATION > UNDERSTANDING. It is the Holy Spirit who leads us to the text, into the text and out of the text. Over the decades I have met plenty of people who claim they have an "interpretation/understanding of the text" but it has no relationship to the text. "Riding the hobby horse" = "give me any text and I will teach/preach/understand it as supporting pre-millennial theology". Luther's rejoinder to Zwingli in 1529 is still pertinent to today: What does the text say? The problem isn't interpretation it is bad interpretation.

So who then decides what interpretation is "bad"? Even from this very statement we see how there are more than one, in fact usually plenty of different interpretations - and the owner of each is convinced his is right. So much for interpretation. Understanding, on the other hand, is the only Truth. It comes from God via the Spirit and applies to his Word. There can only be one understanding because there is only one Truth - how on earth can multiple interpretations all be true? How can anyone decide which bits of which might be true? Interpretation is the quickest way to confusion. One only has to look at the enormous volumes of literature written and sold based upon different, fresh, new, lastest, interpretations to see that it just ain't the right way.

"The bible, in itself, is just a book containing a lot of words, like any other book".This reflects the stance of Karl Barth and the neo-orthodox movement of the early 20th century, and very popular among evangelicals. This has never been the historic Lutheran understanding of the Bible.

Actuallly I think you are wrong here. As I understand Luther, he states that man cannot understand the bible without the Holy Spirit. Therefore, contrary to your claim, without God the bible does just remain a book:
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]52] Now, all who wish to be saved ought to hear this preaching [of God's Word]. For the preaching and hearing of God's Word are instruments of the Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to work efficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them both to will and to do. [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]53] This Word man can externally hear and read, even though he is not yet converted to God and regenerate; for in these external things, as said above, man even since the Fall has to a certain extent a free will, so that he can go to church and hear or not hear the sermon. 5[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4] Through this means, namely, the preaching and hearing of His Word, God works, and breaks our hearts, and draws man, so that through the preaching of the Law he comes to know his sins and God's wrath, and experiences in his heart true terrors, contrition, and sorrow, and through the preaching and consideration of the holy Gospel concerning the gracious forgiveness of sins in Christ a spark of faith is kindled in him, which accepts the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake, and comforts itself with the promise of the Gospel, and thus the Holy Ghost (who works all this) is sent into the heart, Gal. 4, 6. [/font]

The historic Lutheran position is that we never use any translation to determine doctrine nor settle doctrinal disputes. That is why Lutherans have required that those studying to be pastors know at least Greek and Hebrew. And it is the Greek/Hebrew text that has been passed on that is the word of God - it doesn't become the Word, it is the Word. (This is a major topic and may have to head in its own thread)

There is only one thing worse than having a load of different versions of the bible, and that is having a load of amateur "linguists" pretending they understand both Greek and Hebrew sufficient to read the original manuscripts perfectly. In addition, we do not have only one set of manuscripts even in the original languages. There are many copies containing differences - so even if someone is a perfect linguist who is to say which version is the True Word of God? There is no single version of the bible in any language which is perfect - if there was, why would we keep all the others?

Actually things go wrong when we don't take the text seriously and wrestle through the technical issues. There is a very good reason why the ESV rendering of John 20:23 is wrong. It misses in the technical points of reflecting what the Greek text actually says. The Frankenstein is when people get some knowledge and then make claims about "this is what the Greek says" - in reality most people on messages boards such as this don't know enough Greek to put in a thimble. Following an interlinear text does not make one an expert in Greek.

Absolutely, nothing scares me more than amateur linguists, as I mentioned above.

but even worse is when people do not have the theological sense of the entire Scriptures. For example - what is the connection between Exodus 40, Leviticus 16, 23, Ezekiel 10, 40-48, John 1:14, 1 Cor 3, 6, Hebrews 7-10, Revelation 21/ And why are these important eschatological texts? Unless we study within the framework of the Biblical canon and text, and grasp the connection and themes running through the Word, we are prey to any hair-brained idea that people come up with.

Yes in theory, but the problem is that most people are unable to grasp the entire bible in such depth before having formed any opinion or belief from it. Since I have never met anyone who claims to have "finished" the bible, I guess most of us are still on our journey through it. This is why it is so dangerous not to accept that there are parts that one does not yet understand, adn try to fill any gaps with whatever theory sounds most likely - in that way we become tied to our own model adn lose our open-mindedness.

"The bible is just a Book. But when it is combined with the power of the Spirit it becomes God Word in a book " This is the classic statement of the Reformed, and especially Karl Barth and neo-orthodoxy. It is not the Lutheran understanding of the Word.[/font]

I repeat what I posted above form the Book Of Concord. In my opinion this is entirely in line with what Luther says:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]52] Now, all who wish to be saved ought to hear this preaching [of God's Word]. For the preaching and hearing of God's Word are instruments of the Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to work efficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them both to will and to do. [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]53] This Word man can externally hear and read, even though he is not yet converted to God and regenerate; for in these external things, as said above, man even since the Fall has to a certain extent a free will, so that he can go to church and hear or not hear the sermon. 5[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4] Through this means, namely, the preaching and hearing of His Word, God works, and breaks our hearts, and draws man, so that through the preaching of the Law he comes to know his sins and God's wrath, and experiences in his heart true terrors, contrition, and sorrow, and through the preaching and consideration of the holy Gospel concerning the gracious forgiveness of sins in Christ a spark of faith is kindled in him, which accepts the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake, and comforts itself with the promise of the Gospel, and thus the Holy Ghost (who works all this) is sent into the heart, Gal. 4, 6. [/font][/font]

If Man can find God in the bible without God's help then I think that knocks the stool out from under Luther's legs.

Keith

 

[Protoevangel]

So who then decides what interpretation is "bad"? Even from this very statement we see how there are more than one, in fact usually plenty of different interpretations - and the owner of each is convinced his is right. So much for interpretation. Understanding, on the other hand, is the only Truth. It comes from God via the Spirit and applies to his Word. There can only be one understanding because there is only one Truth - how on earth can multiple interpretations all be true? How can anyone decide which bits of which might be true? Interpretation is the quickest way to confusion. One only has to look at the enormous volumes of literature written and sold based upon different, fresh, new, lastest, interpretations to see that it just ain't the right way.

So who then decides what understanding is "bad"? Even from this very statement we see how there are more than one, in fact usually plenty of different understandings - and the owner of each is convinced his is right. So much for understanding. Interpretation, on the other hand, is the only Truth. It comes from God via the Spirit and applies to his Word. There can only be one interpretation because there is only one Truth - how on earth can multiple “understandings” all be true? How can anyone decide which bits of which might be true? “Understanding” is the quickest way to confusion. One only has to look at the enormous volumes of literature written and sold based upon different, fresh, new, lastest, understanding to see that it just ain't the right way.

 

[Kaitsu]

So who then decides what understanding is "bad"? Even from this very statement we see how there are more than one, in fact usually plenty of different understandings - and the owner of each is convinced his is right. So much for understanding. Interpretation, on the other hand, is the only Truth. It comes from God via the Spirit and applies to his Word. There can only be one interpretation because there is only one Truth - how on earth can multiple “understandings” all be true? How can anyone decide which bits of which might be true? “Understanding” is the quickest way to confusion. One only has to look at the enormous volumes of literature written and sold based upon different, fresh, new, lastest, understanding to see that it just ain't the right way.

I think you are swapping words here without really pausing to "understand" what they mean.

In my opinion (interpretation ), an interpretation means precisely that one is trying to say something in another form in order to, hopefully, bring forth the understanding. In other words (interpretation ) one is putting into one's own words what we think something that is unclear really means. Hence we get lots and lots of interpretations.

However, since we all agree there is only one Truth, there can only be one understanding of it - everything else is, by definition, misunderstanding. You cannot understand if you think something different to the Truth.

Keith

 

[Protoevangel]

I think you are swapping words here without really pausing to "understand" what they mean.

In my opinion (interpretation ), an interpretation means precisely that one is trying to say something in another form in order to, hopefully, bring forth the understanding. In other words (interpretation ) one is putting into one's own words what we think something that is unclear really means. Hence we get lots and lots of interpretations.

However, since we all agree there is only one Truth, there can only be one understanding of it - everything else is, by definition, misunderstanding. You cannot understand if you think something different to the Truth.

Keith

If there is only one Truth, then there is only one interpretation. An interpretation is not the same thing as imposing self's "understanding" above the interpretation, which is what you are suggesting here. There is correct and incorrect interpretation. An "understanding" on the other hand is a subjective process of how one percieves and comprehends said interpretation.

 

[Kaitsu]

If there is only one Truth, then there is only one interpretation. An interpretation is not the same thing as imposing self's "understanding" above the interpretation, which is what you are suggesting here. There is correct and incorrect interpretation. An "understanding" on the other hand is a subjective process of how one percieves and comprehends said interpretation.

Oh, I am sure there is only one truth (but then who really knows )

And since there is only one Truth, what on earth does one need an interpretation for? Answer, because one doesn't understand that Truth. And when one does understand it, then there is no need for an interpretation, is there.

But I agree with you that there is certainly "correct and incorrect interpretation" and lots of the latter . So it really isn't much use is it!

Keith

 

[Protoevangel]

Oh, I am sure there is only one truth (but then who really knows )

Somehow, I expected a statement like that out of you sooner or later Keith.

And since there is only one Truth, what on earth does one need an interpretation for? Answer, because one doesn't understand that Truth. And when one does understand it, then there is no need for an interpretation, is there.

And "understanding" without the correct interpretation is a false understanding.
You see Keith, it's not either/or, it's both/and. You reject one, you loose both.

But I agree with you that there is certainly "correct and incorrect interpretation" and lots of the latter . So it really isn't much use is it!

Keith

There is much use in the accurate interpretation thank you. If you prefer, though, I'll leave you to reject proper interpretation in favor of your subjective "understanding".