The Reformers' Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered

Reformation Theology ^ | March 23, 2006 | Unknown

[Zuriel]

They are wrong. You are clearly a TWO trick pony.

Here, kick this around: Are you ‘narses of Washington state’, or ‘Washington state the narses’?

AND since this thread is about sola scriptura, which you reject, you can ignore this clue: The scriptures only have the phrase ‘Son of God’. Even the Christ never called himself ‘God the Son’.

Since you don’t believe sola scriptura, you don’t have to answer it head-on, you can just trot out one of your trick ponies.

[narses]

In the Religion forum, on a thread titled The Reformers’ Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered, Zuriel wrote:

AND since this thread is about sola scriptura, which you reject, you can ignore this clue: The scriptures only have the phrase ‘Son of God’. Even the Christ never called himself ‘God the Son’.

Since you don’t believe sola scriptura, you don’t have to answer it head-on, you can just trot out one of your trick ponies.

[boatbums]

Well said! I agree completely.

[boatbums]

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mat 6:18

Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church.

Fortunately, we have the Word of God that we can read for ourselves and with which the indwelling Holy Spirit illuminates the truth to those who are diligently seeking it. For example, "gates" don't DO anything but keep stuff in or keep stuff out. When gates "prevail", it means they succeeded in their function. But, we know that the gospel is able to penetrate those gates and get souls out. This is far from the false interpretation that heresies will never prevail against the Roman Catholic church - because there HAVE been many instances of just that happening. The Holy Spirit, however, WILL never fail to guide God's people into all truth - those that are willing to search for it with all their hearts and it is found in the Divinely- revealed Scriptures.

[boatbums]

Amen. There IS no other way!

[boatbums]

Excellent answers! It IS curious how certain “religious” people try so hard to disparage the sacred Scriptures and cast doubt upon their purpose and reason they were given to us believers. It's not really the answers they want anyway since their church must be in authority OVER the Divinely-revealed word.

[boatbums]

Good article. The only exception I would have to it is that it sounds like the author places the entire Reformation on Martin Luther's shoulders when we know that the “storm” had been brewing for hundreds of years prior to Luther's 95 Thesis and continued well past his death. He was far from alone in his God-guided endeavor.

[CynicalBear]

>> Show us some gospel that isn't scripture...<<

I notice that you haven’t gotten an answer to that. I’m thinking they don’t want to admit that they take what the RCC says as their scripture.

[HarleyD]

The only exception I would have to it is that it sounds like the author places the entire Reformation on Martin Luther's shoulders when we know that the “storm” had been brewing for hundreds of years prior to Luther's 95 Thesis

Yes, I agree. I actually think the problems started around 1200AD when many were leaving the Catholic Church over the Crusades. New stricter rules came into practice leading to the likes of John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and William Tyndale. These great men planted many seeds which blossomed.

[Tao Yin]

I’m thinking they don’t want to admit that they take what the RCC says as their scripture.

Wow, I guess that's it. When the RCC says that protestants follow a book, the same is true for them. The difference is that our book was inspired by God and closed, while their book continues to be written.

Our books beyond the Bible must agree with the Bible. If they disagree, the Bible wins.

The RCC assumes that their books beyond the Bible automatically agree with the Bible. If they disagree, then it is the person who notices the disagreement who is in error. Anyone who notices a disagreement has either misinterpreted the Bible or the RCC teachings. Besides, anyone outside of the RCC hierarchy isn't eligible to judge.

[Campion]

No where in scripture nor in that verse is the word “church” used as it is conceptualized by the Catholic Church. The word used is “ecclesia” which means an assembly of those called out.

Reality check: Latin, not English, is the official language of the Catholic Church. The Latin word translated into English as "church" is ... wait for it ... ecclesia.

[Campion]

The difference is that our book was inspired by God and closed

The only reason you even know what books belong in your "inspired by God and closed" book is because the "RCC" decreed it, 1600 years ago.

Go ahead: prove to me from the Bible, and the inspired text of the Bible alone, that 1 Peter or Philemon or 3 John belongs in the Bible. You can't, which is why Luther called James an "epistle of straw" and wanted to remove it.

[CynicalBear]

Do Catholics not understand the term “corrupted” meaning of “church” or “ecclesia” or whatever? The RCC has totally changed the meaning just as gay used to mean happy. Ecclesia in the original Greek meant a called out group. Not some conglomerate overreaching organization.

[CynicalBear]

>> The only reason you even know what books belong in your "inspired by God and closed" book is because the "RCC" decreed it, 1600 years ago.<<

Why are Catholics so loath to give credit to God? If God did use the Catholic Church to preserve scripture they may want to consider that God also used Judas,Balaam's donkey, and Herod.

[Gamecock]

**The only reason you even know what books belong in your “inspired by God and closed” book is because the “RCC” decreed it, 1600 years ago.**

No. They didn’t.

Keep drinking that Kool-aid though.

[CynicalBear]

For Catholicism their “traditions” trump scripture anyway. They can make up what they want and for the followers it becomes scripture because the RCC has decreed they believe it.

[Tao Yin]

The difference is that our book was inspired by God and closed.

The only reason you even know what books belong in your "inspired by God and closed" book is because the "RCC" decreed it, 1600 years ago.

Why do you assume that Christians need the RCC to determine what is of God and what is not? Many years before 400 AD, the apostolic writing was within the churches. They shared their letters. Some true, some false. The false were rejected. The true endured.

Revelation 2. to the angel of the church in Ephesus write... you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.

Polycarp, student of Paul, wrote a letter to the Philippians. In that letter he states that Paul "wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you,"

[FourtySeven]

The need for historical apostolic succession comes in, paradoxically, from the point you raised.

You’re absolutely right that the true church of Christ must resemble the first century church (or as you call it the “New Testament church). No one (reasonably) disagrees with that. Everyone claims that is the case about the church they attend.

Thus the real question is, as verga implied, how do we determine which one is in line with the early church?

You suggest one method, checking and comparing the Scriptures (a record of the early church) with a present contender. This is certainly one method. It’s certainly an indespensible method. Harmony with what is recorded in Scripture is *required*.

But this begs an even more basic question: how do we decide what is in line with Scripture and what is not? This is really why I clicked on this thread. It touches on a very important point: why did Luther feel he had a better way of reading Scripture than the Church he came from.

It’s still not clear after reading the OP where he (Luther) got his idea for his hermeneutical approach. It certainly *sounds* reasonable, this notion of just reading Scripture in the “grammatical-historical sense”. Who wouldn’t want to do that? Just because something *sounds* reasonable though doesn’t mean it is, and/or doesn’t mean it’s the safe thing to do!

Also, and more germane, I’m still left wondering who decides what this sense means (because it’s not fully defined in the OP) and how it’s applied verse by verse.

Thus, herein lies the root of the problem with sola scriptura:

1. By what reasoning did Luther engage this hermeneutic? That is, by what source, valid historical (or even otherwise) source did he find this disused hermeneutic, and recover it from the mists of time? It’s not clear from the OP.

2. Also, how (on it’s face) is this hermeneutic different than what the Catholic Church uses? That is, is the author (of the OP) seriously arguing the Church doesn’t use the grammatical sense in interpreting Scripture at all? Or the historical? The Church never uses these hermeneutical approaches when interpreting Scripture, at all, is that what the author is claiming? Because if so, then this article surely is based on a strawman.

Inherent in #1 is a need for an authority based not only in history but also the supernatural. However this means that this source of authority must not only have a supernatural link, but an historical one too. This can’t be escaped.

This need is recognized (partially) in sola scriptura, by recognizing the historical and supernatural source of Scripture. As pointed out before however, Scripture in isolation is not the full solution, as everyone claims they read it correctly. This points to the need for an additional historical and supernatural source. Which is where apostolic succession comes in.

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

"This points to the need for an additional historical and supernatural source. Which is where apostolic succession comes in."

You present an interesting point. The fallacy is to consider mere sinful men to be that "supernatural source". If there are men worthy of the task, then why would we need Christ? Why not just strive to be so worthy? But, alas, Jesus made it very clear that no man could be sinless, thus no man can act as that "supernatural source".

Why is it so difficult to believe that god provided the entire "way, and the truth and the light" in Jesus Christ..... It's that simple. And if the bible is the living Word of God, then it is god speaking to us, and the Holy Spirit interpreting. Some of us put our entire faith in the Words of the scriptures and know that we do not need priests and man-designated special saints to intercede for us, and we do not need a Pope to act as a supreme entity or spokesperson for God. We accept the simple truth that Jesus Christ is all that we need.

You mentioned that each religion thinks they are like the early church. No, that is not true. Some of us are, however striving as best we can to be as close to that benchmark as we can get..... Knowing in humility, that we fall short, but praying for God's guidance and knowing we have His forgiveness.

Please forgive me for being so blunt..... But it is the height of arrogance to say that your particular religious sect holds the keys to apostolic succession and that you always will. And to believe that no one else can possibly be "Christian" unless they bow to your Pope's man-made rules.

I will say again, the "CHURCH" as described in scripture, is the body of believers and followers in Jesus Christ, whether they attend worship service at a Protestant or RC building. Although I must say that personally I would have trouble worshipping where there are visible satanic symbols ..... Example, the pagan Egyptian Obelisk in saint peters square at the vatican. There are many more examples, but I'm sure you are not blind.

[CynicalBear]

>>Which is where apostolic succession comes in.<<

No, it isn’t. Oh it’s what the Catholic Church has duped people into believing but no where in scripture is there such a thing as “apostolic succession”. True Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

True Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and it is He who will reveal what we need to know. No “magesterium” is taught or condoned in scripture. In fact, it is blasphemous against the Holy Sprit to replace Him with some man made office.