Post by Ramon on Apr 18, 2009 0:23:15 GMT -5
Here is my take on this issue.
First, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture interprets Scripture; it only reflects yet another hermeneutical choice amongst many. Take a copy of the Holy Bible. Put it down on a table. Observe it for a while. What does it do? Does it write a commentary on Galatians? No. Everyone brings something (philosophies, experiences, emotions, attitude) to the text. Reformers, theologians, and every Protestant denomination since, have brought there own methods to the study of Scriptures. The Scriptures do not automatically dictate a Fundamentalist [Bible alone] method of interpretation.
Protestant claim that "Scriptures interpret Scriptures" sounds nice at first. It seem to be the most correct rebuttal against those who believe otherwise, but you can't go too long in Scriptures before your theology start failing. The problem is that one cannot arrive at a figurative interpretation unless one make non-biblical arguments. Interpreting a passage figuratively would have to go against the above logic because Scriptures itself would not be able to tell if you should take "Scripture A" figuratively. Let's take the topic of hell. Scriptures picture it at a place (or state?) of fire and brimstone, where worms dieth not, a "outer darkness". But how does one decide whether or not these passages are figuratively or literally? You can't just say "Let Scriptures interpret Scriptures" because Scriptures doesn't tell you whether or not to take these passages in a figurative manner or literally. Ultimately, the decision depends on the person reading these passages. That person would have to interpret these passages! The underlining problem is that Scriptures can not read itself. People interpret Scriptures. Let me give you another example:
You can take a couple of verses regarding the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. In one place Jesus says “I and the Father are one." In another He says “the Father is greater than I.” How do we make scripture interpret scripture? Well, one needs to be used as the interpretive key for the other. One is describing the overall relationship between the Father and the Son and the other is only talking about one aspect of that relationship. But which is which. Of course that was the essence of the Arian controversy. They both accepted that we should use scripture to interpret scripture. But in which direction do you drive it? You can’t get that from Sola Scriptura. Was the Father greater than him because Christ assume flesh (how the Holy Fathers of the Church interpret the text)? Was it because the Father is first in the Holy Trinity (the fountain)? Both these explanation are possible interpretation. Letting Scripture interpret itself will not give you a answer though. Scripture itself does not contain enough information to tell you which way is right. So we need to get that information from somewhere else.
One of the problem with Arius was though he never interpreted Scriptures in light of Church teaching. He never interpret Scriptures based upon what the Fathers down the ages taught about Christ and his relation with his Father. When Saint Anthanasius defended the divinity of Christ and explain Scriptures (which the Arius used against the divinity of Christ), he said "This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiastical sense" (Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse I, NPNF, 4, pg 331). He based his understanding on Scriptures on what the Church has always taught. That is how the Early Christians interpret Holy Scriptures; they always interpret it in light of Church Tradition.
Let me explain something. Most of you here believe in the Holy Trinity. Now, you can certainty used Scriptures to defend the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (As the Holy Fathers did in the Ecumenical Council of Nicea), but Scriptures doesn't give you a definition on what the Holy Trinity is. You will not last long in your explanation on the Holy Trinity before you used language (the word "trinity" itself) and arguments that came about with the Holy Fathers of the Church and not Scriptures themselves. Mormons believe in a Trinity (1 God in three divine beings, as oppose to persons), but how one decide which one is correct? You can go on and on and say they wrong because Scriptures doesn't teach that but Scriptures doesn't give a definition of the Holy Trinity, so you are left with a problem.
How about the Holy Incarnation of Christ? What do you all believe concerning this? Do you believe Christ was one person with two natures? Amen. But how did you arrive to this conclusion? You can list Scriptures proving Christ divinity and humanity, but what Scripture can you give to defend the position that Christ was one person with two natures as oppose to saying Christ was two persons (divine and human)? Do both natures combine? What kind of union was it? What about his human and divine will? Do you all accept the understanding of the person of Christ taught by the second and third Holy Ecumenical Councils?
The point is that one can never arrive at the accepted understanding of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ without first accepting the language and understanding of the Early Fathers of the Church. None of this can one believe by simply letting "Scriptures interpret itself"or by simply following the Bible alone theory. Sure, it can be defended by using Scriptures, but your understanding of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation is thanks to the Holy Fathers of the Church not because you let Scriptures interpret Scriptures and thus arrive at a theological definition. And it is not because Scriptures contains all that is necessary either. The Fathers were used by God to illumine the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the divinity of the Holy Spirit (St. Gregory of Nyssa [335-399AD], St. Gregory of Nazianzus [328-390AD], St. Basil [330-379AD]. They were used to defend the truth regarding Christ: His divinity (St. Athanasius, 295-373AD), His two natures (St. Cyril of Alexandria, 370-444AD), His divine and human will (Pope St. Leo the Great, Saint Cyril, etc). These dogmas certainty can not be found by simply checking the references of a good concordance. There are doctrines that can be defended using Scriptures, but ultimately they are based upon the Early Church understanding of different texts.
Christ did not give us the Bible, He gave us the Church (the pillar of truth, 1 Tim 3:15). Protestants do not realize that the Church existed before the collection of writings that we call the Bible was finished. It was the Church that gave us the Bible. It is only within the living experience of the Church that Holy Scripture can be properly understood. For Orthodox Christians, the Bible is not just something we read, it is what we live and breath! The Bible was never meant to contain all the information of Christianity (2 Thes 2:15). Saint Paul on several occasions said that God gave certain people the gift to teach others. Some are apostles, teachers, etc. He didn't say "Just interpret Scriptures yourself.....you do not need other people". The man of Ethiopia couldn't understand Scriptures until St. Philip (a deacon, a figure of the Church) took him by the hands and told him how to correctly understand Scriptures (ACts 8:25-31). We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us. We are all in the position of the Ethiopian. The words of Scripture are not always self-explanatory. God speaks directly to the heart of each one of us as we read Scriptures. Scripture reading is a personal dialogue between each one of us and Christ - but we also need guidance. And our guide is the Church.
It is the Church that tells us what is Scripture. A book is not part of Scripture because of any particular theory about its dating and authorship. Even if it could be proved, for example, that the Fourth Gospel was not actually written by Saint John the beloved disciple of Christ, this would not alter the fact that we Orthodox accept the Fourth Gospel as Holy Scripture. Why? Because the Gospel of John is accepted by the Church and in the Church. It has always been accepted by the Church.
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11).
"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou [Saint Timothy] to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:2)
The Church has 2000 years of wisdom, the writings of the Holy Fathers, people who spent their lives in prayer and in following the Lord. We honor and add their understanding of Holy Scripture to our own. Their lives show us how Scripture is to be put into practice, how to live our lives in a Godly manner. There understanding of Scripture has influences later generation of Christians. The commentaries and homilies of various Holy Fathers of the Church, Saint John Chrysostom for instance, is a treasure to us Orthodox Christians. We read Scriptures in light of Patristic understanding, the Divine Liturgy, or liturgically, etc.. I am forever grateful to Saint John Chrysostom, for his commentaries/homilies has helped me better understand Sacred Scriptures.
Each Protestant claim to be Spirit-lead. Every Protestant claim to have the truth. Every Protestant claim to be Bible-Based in there theology. Just saying "Let Scriptures interpret Scriptures" doesn't solve the modern Protestant dilemma. Who is right? Emily believe her Church is correct. Of course she will say such a thing. She really believe her theology is 100% Scriptural. Great! So did Arius, Nestorian, and all the Early Heretics. That doesn't mean her Church has Apostolic Succession. It doesn't mean her Church has kept the doctrines and practices of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the 1st-10th century. Many of her doctrines, however, can only be traced back to Protestant Reformation, doctrines that came about from the Reformers personal interpretation of Scriptures. She believe her theology is biblical only because she believe she has interpreted the text correctly. Her belief is the same as the Lutheran across the street, he too believe his Church is the correct one and 100% Bible based. He also believe he is spirit-lead. You see? That what the doctrine of Bible Alone does. Saying "Let Scriptures interpret Scriptures" is like starting a small fire...it starts off small till it consumes a entire house......
But Christ established ONE Church, ONE Faith, ONE Baptism, ONE Spirit. All those who outside the Apostolic Faith, not following the footsteps of Jesus Christ, the Holy Apostles, there Holy Successors, and the God-Bearing Fathers and Mothers of the Church will never be in the fullness of the truth. Protestants may believe they are in light and that there theology is sound and biblical, but as long they are outside the Apostolic Faith, as express in the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Apostles, there Holy Successors, and the God-Bearing Fathers and Mothers of the Church, and the Holy Seven Ecumenical Councils, they will always be in a cup half full.
So no, Scriptures doesn't interpret itself. Scriptures can not read itself. People who pick up a Bible interpret Scriptures, for better or for worst. Yes, a Scripture can not contradict another Scripture nor can a true Orthodox teaching contradict Holy Scriptures. But the belief that Scriptures interprets Scriptures is not true. The belief of Sola-Scriptural is also not true (not even based upon Scriptures). The Early Fathers of the Church always interpret Scriptures based upon the Living Tradition of the Church. They used Scriptures within the Church and they interpreted Scriptures within the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Both of these Protestant beliefs is absent in the Early Church.....in fact for 1,500-1,800 years the "Bible Alone" theory as well as the belief that Scripture interprets Scriptures was unheard of.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
First, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture interprets Scripture; it only reflects yet another hermeneutical choice amongst many. Take a copy of the Holy Bible. Put it down on a table. Observe it for a while. What does it do? Does it write a commentary on Galatians? No. Everyone brings something (philosophies, experiences, emotions, attitude) to the text. Reformers, theologians, and every Protestant denomination since, have brought there own methods to the study of Scriptures. The Scriptures do not automatically dictate a Fundamentalist [Bible alone] method of interpretation.
Protestant claim that "Scriptures interpret Scriptures" sounds nice at first. It seem to be the most correct rebuttal against those who believe otherwise, but you can't go too long in Scriptures before your theology start failing. The problem is that one cannot arrive at a figurative interpretation unless one make non-biblical arguments. Interpreting a passage figuratively would have to go against the above logic because Scriptures itself would not be able to tell if you should take "Scripture A" figuratively. Let's take the topic of hell. Scriptures picture it at a place (or state?) of fire and brimstone, where worms dieth not, a "outer darkness". But how does one decide whether or not these passages are figuratively or literally? You can't just say "Let Scriptures interpret Scriptures" because Scriptures doesn't tell you whether or not to take these passages in a figurative manner or literally. Ultimately, the decision depends on the person reading these passages. That person would have to interpret these passages! The underlining problem is that Scriptures can not read itself. People interpret Scriptures. Let me give you another example:
You can take a couple of verses regarding the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. In one place Jesus says “I and the Father are one." In another He says “the Father is greater than I.” How do we make scripture interpret scripture? Well, one needs to be used as the interpretive key for the other. One is describing the overall relationship between the Father and the Son and the other is only talking about one aspect of that relationship. But which is which. Of course that was the essence of the Arian controversy. They both accepted that we should use scripture to interpret scripture. But in which direction do you drive it? You can’t get that from Sola Scriptura. Was the Father greater than him because Christ assume flesh (how the Holy Fathers of the Church interpret the text)? Was it because the Father is first in the Holy Trinity (the fountain)? Both these explanation are possible interpretation. Letting Scripture interpret itself will not give you a answer though. Scripture itself does not contain enough information to tell you which way is right. So we need to get that information from somewhere else.
One of the problem with Arius was though he never interpreted Scriptures in light of Church teaching. He never interpret Scriptures based upon what the Fathers down the ages taught about Christ and his relation with his Father. When Saint Anthanasius defended the divinity of Christ and explain Scriptures (which the Arius used against the divinity of Christ), he said "This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiastical sense" (Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse I, NPNF, 4, pg 331). He based his understanding on Scriptures on what the Church has always taught. That is how the Early Christians interpret Holy Scriptures; they always interpret it in light of Church Tradition.
Let me explain something. Most of you here believe in the Holy Trinity. Now, you can certainty used Scriptures to defend the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (As the Holy Fathers did in the Ecumenical Council of Nicea), but Scriptures doesn't give you a definition on what the Holy Trinity is. You will not last long in your explanation on the Holy Trinity before you used language (the word "trinity" itself) and arguments that came about with the Holy Fathers of the Church and not Scriptures themselves. Mormons believe in a Trinity (1 God in three divine beings, as oppose to persons), but how one decide which one is correct? You can go on and on and say they wrong because Scriptures doesn't teach that but Scriptures doesn't give a definition of the Holy Trinity, so you are left with a problem.
How about the Holy Incarnation of Christ? What do you all believe concerning this? Do you believe Christ was one person with two natures? Amen. But how did you arrive to this conclusion? You can list Scriptures proving Christ divinity and humanity, but what Scripture can you give to defend the position that Christ was one person with two natures as oppose to saying Christ was two persons (divine and human)? Do both natures combine? What kind of union was it? What about his human and divine will? Do you all accept the understanding of the person of Christ taught by the second and third Holy Ecumenical Councils?
The point is that one can never arrive at the accepted understanding of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ without first accepting the language and understanding of the Early Fathers of the Church. None of this can one believe by simply letting "Scriptures interpret itself"or by simply following the Bible alone theory. Sure, it can be defended by using Scriptures, but your understanding of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation is thanks to the Holy Fathers of the Church not because you let Scriptures interpret Scriptures and thus arrive at a theological definition. And it is not because Scriptures contains all that is necessary either. The Fathers were used by God to illumine the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the divinity of the Holy Spirit (St. Gregory of Nyssa [335-399AD], St. Gregory of Nazianzus [328-390AD], St. Basil [330-379AD]. They were used to defend the truth regarding Christ: His divinity (St. Athanasius, 295-373AD), His two natures (St. Cyril of Alexandria, 370-444AD), His divine and human will (Pope St. Leo the Great, Saint Cyril, etc). These dogmas certainty can not be found by simply checking the references of a good concordance. There are doctrines that can be defended using Scriptures, but ultimately they are based upon the Early Church understanding of different texts.
Christ did not give us the Bible, He gave us the Church (the pillar of truth, 1 Tim 3:15). Protestants do not realize that the Church existed before the collection of writings that we call the Bible was finished. It was the Church that gave us the Bible. It is only within the living experience of the Church that Holy Scripture can be properly understood. For Orthodox Christians, the Bible is not just something we read, it is what we live and breath! The Bible was never meant to contain all the information of Christianity (2 Thes 2:15). Saint Paul on several occasions said that God gave certain people the gift to teach others. Some are apostles, teachers, etc. He didn't say "Just interpret Scriptures yourself.....you do not need other people". The man of Ethiopia couldn't understand Scriptures until St. Philip (a deacon, a figure of the Church) took him by the hands and told him how to correctly understand Scriptures (ACts 8:25-31). We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us. We are all in the position of the Ethiopian. The words of Scripture are not always self-explanatory. God speaks directly to the heart of each one of us as we read Scriptures. Scripture reading is a personal dialogue between each one of us and Christ - but we also need guidance. And our guide is the Church.
It is the Church that tells us what is Scripture. A book is not part of Scripture because of any particular theory about its dating and authorship. Even if it could be proved, for example, that the Fourth Gospel was not actually written by Saint John the beloved disciple of Christ, this would not alter the fact that we Orthodox accept the Fourth Gospel as Holy Scripture. Why? Because the Gospel of John is accepted by the Church and in the Church. It has always been accepted by the Church.
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11).
"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou [Saint Timothy] to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:2)
The Church has 2000 years of wisdom, the writings of the Holy Fathers, people who spent their lives in prayer and in following the Lord. We honor and add their understanding of Holy Scripture to our own. Their lives show us how Scripture is to be put into practice, how to live our lives in a Godly manner. There understanding of Scripture has influences later generation of Christians. The commentaries and homilies of various Holy Fathers of the Church, Saint John Chrysostom for instance, is a treasure to us Orthodox Christians. We read Scriptures in light of Patristic understanding, the Divine Liturgy, or liturgically, etc.. I am forever grateful to Saint John Chrysostom, for his commentaries/homilies has helped me better understand Sacred Scriptures.
Each Protestant claim to be Spirit-lead. Every Protestant claim to have the truth. Every Protestant claim to be Bible-Based in there theology. Just saying "Let Scriptures interpret Scriptures" doesn't solve the modern Protestant dilemma. Who is right? Emily believe her Church is correct. Of course she will say such a thing. She really believe her theology is 100% Scriptural. Great! So did Arius, Nestorian, and all the Early Heretics. That doesn't mean her Church has Apostolic Succession. It doesn't mean her Church has kept the doctrines and practices of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the 1st-10th century. Many of her doctrines, however, can only be traced back to Protestant Reformation, doctrines that came about from the Reformers personal interpretation of Scriptures. She believe her theology is biblical only because she believe she has interpreted the text correctly. Her belief is the same as the Lutheran across the street, he too believe his Church is the correct one and 100% Bible based. He also believe he is spirit-lead. You see? That what the doctrine of Bible Alone does. Saying "Let Scriptures interpret Scriptures" is like starting a small fire...it starts off small till it consumes a entire house......
But Christ established ONE Church, ONE Faith, ONE Baptism, ONE Spirit. All those who outside the Apostolic Faith, not following the footsteps of Jesus Christ, the Holy Apostles, there Holy Successors, and the God-Bearing Fathers and Mothers of the Church will never be in the fullness of the truth. Protestants may believe they are in light and that there theology is sound and biblical, but as long they are outside the Apostolic Faith, as express in the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Apostles, there Holy Successors, and the God-Bearing Fathers and Mothers of the Church, and the Holy Seven Ecumenical Councils, they will always be in a cup half full.
So no, Scriptures doesn't interpret itself. Scriptures can not read itself. People who pick up a Bible interpret Scriptures, for better or for worst. Yes, a Scripture can not contradict another Scripture nor can a true Orthodox teaching contradict Holy Scriptures. But the belief that Scriptures interprets Scriptures is not true. The belief of Sola-Scriptural is also not true (not even based upon Scriptures). The Early Fathers of the Church always interpret Scriptures based upon the Living Tradition of the Church. They used Scriptures within the Church and they interpreted Scriptures within the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Both of these Protestant beliefs is absent in the Early Church.....in fact for 1,500-1,800 years the "Bible Alone" theory as well as the belief that Scripture interprets Scriptures was unheard of.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
