Sola Scriptura

[mikedsjr]

Scott, so the issue isnt with what is sola scriptura but why cant each society decide scripture interpretation?

[mikedsjr]

Mitch,
In John 5:39 Jesus says that the pharisees read the scriptures in order to find salvation in them by their deeds. Jesus did not say there that God is not confined to scripture. He says scripture points to Him in regards to salvation. 2 Tim 3;16,17 ponts the man of God to scripture in order to be equipped for every good work.

How do you know scripture points to Christ without scripture? How do you know what equips the man of God without scripture? The problem has never been scripture but unregenerate man using scripture for their beliefs and it ends with twisting of scripture

[ScottBarger]

Well that's part of it. The churches I grew up around tended to all embrace the same kind of Sola Scriptura doctrine, "The Bible, the Whole Bible, and Nothing but the Bible." This was often practiced in a way that cause people to dismiss the findings of science, or historians, and even text critics. It had no appreciation for the development of canon and ultimately led to flimsy hermeneutics, in my experience.

Now, of course not all adherents to Sola Scriptura act that way, but i have seen elements of this in many of my fellow Christians, especially when they say things like "Well, this is what the Bible says" when they really mean, "This is what I think the Bible means" and they will not acknowledge that their particular interpretation is one of many valid interpretations or even that their interpretation is a product of theology.

[tirtlegrrl]

Mitch,
In John 5:39 Jesus says that the pharisees read the scriptures in order to find salvation in them by their deeds. Jesus did not say there that God is not confined to scripture. He says scripture points to Him in regards to salvation. 2 Tim 3;16,17 ponts the man of God to scripture in order to be equipped for every good work.

How do you know scripture points to Christ without scripture? How do you know what equips the man of God without scripture? The problem has never been scripture but unregenerate man using scripture for their beliefs and it ends with twisting of scripture

And how can we judge the difference between twisting and non-twisting of Scripture, other than by appeal to a particular standard of interpretation or authority which is by nature outside of Scripture?

[mitchellmckain]

In John 5:39 Jesus says that the pharisees read the scriptures in order to find salvation in them by their deeds.

INCORRECT. The words "by their deeds" nor anything equivalent is not in the passage. He simply says to them that you search the scriptures that you may have life clearly indicating that the scriptures are NOT where you can find life. He says to them that they not come to Him though the scriptures point to Him and thus He makes it clear that the life comes from Him and not from scriptures. Thus He makes it clear that the life comes from Him but not via scripture. Scripture is a tool that God uses to bring us to Him and not the means by which He gives us life. Jesus said that He came that we may have life and have it more abundantly and in John 5, He says quite clearly that we will NOT find that life in scripture but only in Him. Thus in this role of bringing us more life, Jesus makes it crystal clear that He is NOT confined to the scriptures.

Jesus did not say there that God is not confined to scripture.

Yes in combination with other scriptures He most certainly does. He most certainly does not say that God is confined to scriptures and the scriptures certainly indicate just the opposite.

He says scripture points to Him in regards to salvation. 2 Tim 3;16,17 ponts the man of God to scripture in order to be equipped for every good work.

INCORRECT. 2 Timothy 3:16,17 says only that God is the source of scripture and that scripture is useful for the purpose teaching, reproof, correction and training in order to be equipped for every good work. It does NOT say that every good work requires the scriptures. THAT would contradict other scriptures like Romans chapter 2 where Paul makes it completely clear that having the scripture and doing what is good and right are two completely separate things. There are those who have the scriptures and do nothing good and there are those who not have the scriptures and yet do good because the law of God is written in their hearts, which the OT makes clear is God's ultimate goal for everyone -- not that we would do what the scripture tells us to do but that we would do what is right and good for its own sake alone.

And so Romans 2 is another way in which scripture makes it crystal clear that the work of God is not confined to scripture. Now in many different places the Bible certainly does suggest that every good thing ultimately comes from God. In 1 John 4:7-8 it says "love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God; for God is love." Love and what is good in the world is a product of the work of God in the world. This is why He made the world and this is what all His work is seeking to accomplish. Thus when Romans 2 says that there are those that do what is right even though they do not have the scriptures then we cannot doubt that this is the work of God, and thus it is made clear that the work of God is not confined to the scriptures.

How do you know scripture points to Christ without scripture?

Well duh! That is true of the utility and value of many many things. You don't really know that something is useful for a purpose until you see it for yourself and see how it actually does what some people claim.

How do you know what equips the man of God without scripture? The problem has never been scripture but unregenerate man using scripture for their beliefs and it ends with twisting of scripture

Indeed and one of the things that the such a man, who would turn scripture into a tool of power, is going to do, is to say that the work of God is confined to scripture. They want you to believe that their knowledge of scripture means that they can speak for God so that you think that all the authority of God resides in them. They don't want you to have a connection with God that does not go through them and so they will tell you the lie that God cannot work outside of scripture. They want their expertise in scripture to mean that you will come to them rather than to God.

And how can we judge the difference between twisting and non-twisting of Scripture, other than by appeal to a particular standard of interpretation or authority which is by nature outside of Scripture?

You can nearly always tell where certain ideas come from by looking at whose motivation they serve -- and that is how I know where this idea, that God only works through scripture, came from.

[tirtlegrrl]

I just had an idea about this that might be helpful to the discussion.

I'm a professional classical musician. A huge portion of what we do is textual interpretation. We look at the score for a piece of music, and from our experience of the score we play what we call, say, the "Brahms String Quartet in B-flat". So, analogous to the "sola scriptura" idea, we might have the "sola the score of Brahms," for the text, or perhaps "sola the way Brahms intended the piece to sound," meaning the players would try to conform to some "ideal performance" of the quartet as it might exist in Brahms' imagination. But we also have interpretive and listening communities that shape how the piece is played, each with its own kind of authority over interpretation.

So in this analogy, the Catholics are the performer/teachers that tell students how the piece goes because of a lineage of performance tradition that goes back to a close colleague of Brahms who allegedly got the interpretation from the horse's mouth, as it were. Those people derive their authority over the interpretation from a tradition that goes back to Brahms himself.

Martin Luther is the student that looks at the score one day in a lesson and says, "Hey, you're telling me to put an unmarked accent here, and you're ignoring this diminuendo marking in the score two measures later."

So he storms out and proclaims allegiance to the score alone, and soon attracts a wide following. But this is immediately problematic, because if all those musicians still want to play the piece as "Brahms intended it" to sound, without the performance tradition anyone looking at the score can and will make their own judgments about tempi, rubato, intonation, articulation, etc. They might even, Brahms forbid, see fit to adhere to what they think is the "spirit of the score" rather than the letter of the score, and put in some ideas of their own. So you then end up with very widely differing performances of the piece, all claiming to be "what Brahms wrote," or "what Brahms intended" and appealing to the score for support of their interpretation. So instead of one particular authority over interpretation, you have as many authorities as there are performers. Hence if you're looking for the "true" interpretation of Brahms, the "score alone" philosophy still doesn't get you anywhere, because without the tradition of performance you have no outside standard against which to measure your interpretation of his markings. Unfortunately you also can't know that the Catholic tradition of Brahms performance hasn't been corrupted, and in fact the accumulation of extra-textual interpretive habits in the tradition suggests very strongly that the current authoritative interpretation likely bears little resemblance to what Brahms originally had in mind.

Here's my take on Brahms: if Brahms had wanted total control over how his music was played, he wouldn't have written it down and had it published and spread around. On the other hand, a performance tradition that claims to go all the way back to Brahms could also be helpful in determining a continuum for what is more and less faithful to the sort of interpretation Brahms would like most. There's a practical element too: if my interpretation is too far out there no one will listen to the performance or even call it a Brahms quartet.

[mikedsjr]

Tgrrl, no disrespect but we arent talking musical tastes of a finitera individuals piece of music. We are talking the God revealing Himself and using scripture to do it. Unless you believe God is an imperfect being, then your example fails

[tirtlegrrl]

Tgrrl, no disrespect but we arent talking musical tastes of a finitera individuals piece of music. We are talking the God revealing Himself and using scripture to do it. Unless you believe God is an imperfect being, then your example fails

It's an analogy, mike. I'm trying to explain why "text alone" is just as problematic an axiom in matters regarding authority and interpretation as a rule that places authority in a given interpretive community. If I said that Brahms's ghost was capable of leading his chosen musicians to the only correct interpretation of his music would that resolve interpretive issues in the musical community? No.

[mikedsjr]

The scriptures are God breathed from an eternal perfect God which scripture says God requires perfection from us or the repent and believe in the son who died for your sin filled heart. Brahma bull is a dead man that had an imperfect mind that doesn't care if imperfect people rearrange his music.

[tirtlegrrl]

The scriptures are God breathed from an eternal perfect God which scripture says God requires perfection from us or the repent and believe in the son who died for your sin filled heart. Brahma bull is a dead man that had an imperfect mind that doesn't care if imperfect people rearrange his music.

The problem is imperfect people getting to the intent of an author ONLY through a text, which always requires interpretation. If you want to play Brahms the way Brahms would want, but the only thing you have is a score, saying the score is all anyone needs to play the music correctly is just wrong. Some people may play the music correctly and some may not, and how can anyone listening know the difference between "perfect" Brahms, the Brahms-authorized performance, and one that falls short?

[jordanws]

I just had an idea about this that might be helpful to the discussion.

I'm a professional classical musician. A huge portion of what we do is textual interpretation. We look at the score for a piece of music, and from our experience of the score we play what we call, say, the "Brahms String Quartet in B-flat". So, analogous to the "sola scriptura" idea, we might have the "sola the score of Brahms," for the text, or perhaps "sola the way Brahms intended the piece to sound," meaning the players would try to conform to some "ideal performance" of the quartet as it might exist in Brahms' imagination. But we also have interpretive and listening communities that shape how the piece is played, each with its own kind of authority over interpretation.

So in this analogy, the Catholics are the performer/teachers that tell students how the piece goes because of a lineage of performance tradition that goes back to a close colleague of Brahms who allegedly got the interpretation from the horse's mouth, as it were. Those people derive their authority over the interpretation from a tradition that goes back to Brahms himself.

Martin Luther is the student that looks at the score one day in a lesson and says, "Hey, you're telling me to put an unmarked accent here, and you're ignoring this diminuendo marking in the score two measures later."

So he storms out and proclaims allegiance to the score alone, and soon attracts a wide following. But this is immediately problematic, because if all those musicians still want to play the piece as "Brahms intended it" to sound, without the performance tradition anyone looking at the score can and will make their own judgments about tempi, rubato, intonation, articulation, etc. They might even, Brahms forbid, see fit to adhere to what they think is the "spirit of the score" rather than the letter of the score, and put in some ideas of their own. So you then end up with very widely differing performances of the piece, all claiming to be "what Brahms wrote," or "what Brahms intended" and appealing to the score for support of their interpretation. So instead of one particular authority over interpretation, you have as many authorities as there are performers. Hence if you're looking for the "true" interpretation of Brahms, the "score alone" philosophy still doesn't get you anywhere, because without the tradition of performance you have no outside standard against which to measure your interpretation of his markings. Unfortunately you also can't know that the Catholic tradition of Brahms performance hasn't been corrupted, and in fact the accumulation of extra-textual interpretive habits in the tradition suggests very strongly that the current authoritative interpretation likely bears little resemblance to what Brahms originally had in mind.

Here's my take on Brahms: if Brahms had wanted total control over how his music was played, he wouldn't have written it down and had it published and spread around. On the other hand, a performance tradition that claims to go all the way back to Brahms could also be helpful in determining a continuum for what is more and less faithful to the sort of interpretation Brahms would like most. There's a practical element too: if my interpretation is too far out there no one will listen to the performance or even call it a Brahms quartet.

I love this interpretation. The only thing I would add is that if God were Brahms, he would have designed the original score to change in appropriate ways, so that no matter when it was played, the small changes would never add up to the point where the original score was unrecognizable, if that makes sense.

[ScottBarger]

I think it was a good analogy TG, it speaks to the transmition of the text (variants and or/ errors) and it speaks to intent.

[tirtlegrrl]

I think it was a good analogy TG, it speaks to the transmition of the text (variants and or/ errors) and it speaks to intent.

Actually, I wasn't concerned in my analogy with textual variants (we do deal with those, though, for sure) but more with tradition of interpretation, i.e. the Catholic Church's claim that they are the source of all proper interpretation. Because even if we could know for sure that we have the text as originally written, we still have the problem of interpretational authority, and appealing to the text itself for the source of authority doesn't remove the problem entirely since even the claim that the text itself claims its own authority still comes through the interpretation of a reader.

[mitchellmckain]

Actually, I wasn't concerned in my analogy with textual variants (we do deal with those, though, for sure) but more with tradition of interpretation, i.e. the Catholic Church's claim that they are the source of all proper interpretation. Because even if we could know for sure that we have the text as originally written, we still have the problem of interpretational authority, and appealing to the text itself for the source of authority doesn't remove the problem entirely since even the claim that the text itself claims its own authority still comes through the interpretation of a reader.

Except that in this case the text wasn't written by Brahm's. The claim is that this text is a work of God and thus we have to figure into this the fact that God already knows how it will be interpreted. Someone with His ability and understanding can make the text say what it needs to say even to other cultures and future generations. It is the experience of Christians that the Bible does in fact have this kind of ability and understanding behind it and thus many like myself think that the principle of "sola scripture" IS valid because of it. We certainly reject the arguments that scripture is only correct if interpreted properly which frankly boils down to someone saying that it is only correct if they are allowed to rewrite it suit themselves.


I think this is essential the same as what both Mike and jordan were trying to say also.

[tirtlegrrl]

@ mitch--

Yes, I have no problem with the idea that God can "make the text say what it needs to say." But the claim that all other authorities are subject to the text doesn't make sense to me at all. The Bible doesn't sit up on a lectern by itself and tell people what to do. People read the Bible and then tell other people what to do. The first aspect of the doctrine, that the Bible is all people need to come to proper knowledge of God (as opposed to them having to be a member of a particular religious club) to know anything true about God) is a good idea in theory, as it removes one level of bureaucracy between people and God. But the second part, that all other authorities are to be corrected by the word of God, doesn't really happen. What happens is that people with similar ideas about the most plausible interpretation band together and hold to that as the "true" teaching of the Bible, with varying degrees of confidence and arrogance. There's only correction within a particular hermeneutic community, there's not much inter-community correction happening, because interpretations can be and are disputed all over the place.