Honest Questions re: Sola Scriptura

[ricg]

I assume you and I would agree (based on what some others have said so far uncontested) that the Scriptures are not self-interpreting. Correct me if I am wrong.

As DaRev already explained, we disagree with this point. One could hardly call the Scriptures sufficient if something had to be added to them in order for them to fulfill their function.

"have the last word on right teaching" mean to you in this context.
If that is not so, my apologies and would you still expound on what you mean by "sufficient" and "have the last word on right teaching."

By sufficient I mean sufficient for the purpose of delivering Christ to the Church and equipping it with the doctrine God intends it to preach.

What do you mean by "other" teachings in the Bible. "Other" as in apart from those passage that deliver the promise of the righteousness of Christ freely? Can you give me an example of this juxtaposition so I can better understand?

The Bible is filled with information of varying degrees of import ranging from John 3:16 to the names of the folks rebuilding the wall around Jerusalem in Nehemiah. German Lutherans and their progeny in the US have historically divided doctrine into two categories: Law and Gospel. To try to be succinct, the Law is where God tells us how he will judge our conduct. It is God's standard for human righteousness by which God threatens judgment, condemnation and punishment. The Gospel, in the specialized sense I'm using here, consists of the promise of God to save us from that fate, in particular by substituting His own Righteousness (Jesus) for ours. The "good news" of the Gospel is that he does so freely.

So you are not saying that in the scriptures, there are primary passages and secondary passages but, rather, primary purposes and secondary purposes. Is that right? Can you give me an example?

The Gospel is the central teaching of the Bible, though it cannot be well understood without the Law. Once one understands the juxtaposition of Law and Gospel and the centrality of the Gospel, then one is better able to understand passages which, in universal terms, condemn all humans and demand impossible perfection. They are intended on the one hand to instruct as to proper living (secondary purpose), but their more important function is give knowledge of the seriousness of sin and the despair one would face without God's promise of free salvation. Gospel passages are meant to deliver the promise of free salvation for Christ's sake and inspire hope and then faith in His promises and then thankfulness and, ultimately, love.

Can you clarify this part? I am not trying to be silly or snotty but for me in my slowness, it seems to say "The promise is understood by those who believe the promise". Is that what you meant to say? Can you clarify?

I meant only to say that Scripture must be read with the eyes of faith to be properly understood. The central message is God's love for us and plan of salvation. These must be believed to have value and to fully understand the legal passages dealing with judgment, condemnation and punishment. Unbelievers see the Bible as a rulebook and place it in the same category as the Koran: do this or else, and so they reject it. It is a rule book, but is much more. It delivers a promise of fulfillment of the Law, life and salvation. So you can see that in Lutheranism, the delivery of the promise, that is of Christ Himself, and the juxtaposition of the Law in relation to the promise, are also hermeneutic. In that sense, sola scriptura follows from sola christus, sola gratia and sola fide.

Incidently, I of course defer to you on matters of EO faith and understand that my perspectives are western.

Blessings,

Ric

 

[Joshua G.]

In light of the belief that Scripture interprets Scripture, the following question is going to SOUND challenging or like a "gotcha!" question but I am honestly just looking for the Lutheran response to this situation:

What of the fact that you are among the very few Sola Scritpura Protestants that believe in Real Presence. Obviously others have interpreted wrong. What have they done wrong that they can not see waht I assume you would say is so plaze for the combative tone of this question. Its not meant to be at all. I just have poor wording. inly taught in the Scritpures?

I apologi

 

[PreachersWife2004]

In light of the belief that Scripture interprets Scripture, the following question is going to SOUND challenging or like a "gotcha!" question but I am honestly just looking for the Lutheran response to this situation:

What of the fact that you are among the very few Sola Scritpura Protestants that believe in Real Presence. Obviously others have interpreted wrong. What have they done wrong that they can not see waht I assume you would say is so plaze for the combative tone of this question. Its not meant to be at all. I just have poor wording. inly taught in the Scritpures?

I apologi

This is my personal opinion: it has to do with the fact that one cannot fully understand real presence. How can that piece of bread possibly be Jesus? How can the wine be his blood? Taken literally, it seems rather gross to people (I lost count of the number of times I've been called a cannibal!) So rather than appreciating the fact that God's ways are not our ways, they feel the need to explain away what they cannot understand. The easiest way to do this concerning Real Presence is to say that it is only symbolic. Then it's not so weird and gross.

 

[DaRev]

What of the fact that you are among the very few Sola Scritpura Protestants that believe in Real Presence. Obviously others have interpreted wrong. What have they done wrong...

Just an FYI, we Lutherans do not consider ourselves Protestant. We are evangelical catholics.

As to your question, Protestants add human reason to their interpretation of Scripture. If something cannot make sense to human reason, then it must be figurative. They will ask things like 'if Jesus was 5 feet something and a hundred and something pounds, how can His body be present on every altar in every Church on every Sunday?' Or 'if Jesus ascended bodily into heaven, how can He be physically present in the Sacrament on earth?' Human reason cannot fathom the things of God. God Himself makes this point in Isaiah 55:8. We, by faith, simply take Jesus at His word.

 

[Joshua G.]

Thanks to the both of you. Also, I had heard that before, DaRev, (re: evangelical Catholics or Catholics in exile) but from very few Lutherans. I do, however, very much respect that point of view. Thank you for bringing it into this thread.

 

[ricg]

What of the fact that you are among the very few Sola Scritpura Protestants that believe in Real Presence. Obviously others have interpreted wrong. What have they done wrong that they can not see waht I assume you would say is so plainly taught in the Scritpures?

I think this is a very important question if you're trying to get to the bottom of SS, because it demonstrates that they have a different conception of it than do we. On the other hand, because I am not completely familiar with their reasons for rejecting the RP, I do not wish to be uncharitable or to build straw men to tear down. With those qualifers, I'll try to answer.

My understanding is that they interpret the relevant passages to be metaphors. The text, however, does have any indication of metaphor other than the impossibility under the law of nature of bread being flesh and wine being blood. The gospel writers are not relaying or explaining a dream, vision or parable. Moreover, in keeping with the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture, other passages speak of a participation specifically in His Body and Blood (and not merely in Jesus, which might be more apt to indicate a metaphorical meaning). Paul speaks of physical illness from unworthy participation.

So where have they done wrong? The answer I hear most in Lutheran circles is that they have imported reason, or a theological system, into Scripture rather than merely reading and believing its words. If so, then when they say sola scriptura, they mean that there is no other source of divine revelation, but they do not say that sola scriptura has implications about how scripture should be applied, or what may be used to apply it, as compared to the Lutheran view that Scripture must speak for (interpret) itself.

 

[Resha Caner]

On the other hand, because I am not completely familiar with their reasons for rejecting the RP, I do not wish to be uncharitable or to build straw men to tear down. With those qualifers, I'll try to answer.

I wish more people would realize what you said here.

I had the interesting experience of being raised Methodist, yet my good friends were Catholic. When I first switched to the LCMS I thought much of what was being said about Protestants and Catholics was very unfair. Yes, they have their doctrinal faults, but ...

Anyway, what DaRev said matches pretty well with my Methodist experience. They rejected the real presence because it didn't make sense according to their human "reason." As such, the real presence is one of many things I wrestled with for quite some time after coming to the LCMS. As I've said before, it wasn't enough for me to shrug and say, "It's a mystery." Maybe it should have been enough, but it wasn't. I think it is a valid question to ask how the Church first came to the doctrine of the real presence, and don't think it's quite as obvious as some seem to indicate.

Many do come to it through via a heart-felt, trusting path (I don't know what else to call it). I envy those people - admire them - greatly value them. But that is not how I came to accept the real presence. My path was a more mind-driven, contemplative struggle. There is more than one way. There is only one truth, and all who come to that truth are led there by the Spirit, but there are an infinite number of paths.

So, I'm willing to wrestle with those who seem to be on a path similar to what mine was until the Spirit takes hold of them and convinces them ... with this warning - don't expect it to be an easy road. The easy road is to deny the real presence.

Sorry. That was a long digression to say: yes, some use reason to deny the real presence. Been there, and I can tell you how "reason" also led me away from that conclusion.

 

[twin.spin]

When I read these verses.....:

John 3:15
that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.



John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

John 20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.


Sola scripture is enough for the reader to know who is the only true God....