Martin Luther's Position on Intrepretation of Scripure of Free Will part one

This week I again entered into a post about Free Choice, or free will.  And there are so many in the church today (pastor/teacher/preachers) that hold the same position as Erasmus did

 

 

Of course many of my preacher friends will just blow off anything that Luther says. That is to their demised. I have heard that for 50 years. 

 

I just don't take comments like that, I take it with a grain of salt.  I do the research and I do the study and learn the truth. 

 

I could just have said John MacArthur and they would say the same thing.

 

As a matter of fact any person who holds a different position they are not going to agree with.

 

But I could without question agree with the position that Luther, Calvin, MacArthur, Pink. and many others hold.

 

 

Martin Luther born in Eisleben, Saxomy in 1483 died in 1548 at 62 years of age. 

 

Luther's chief reason for writing is, as he tells us, that Christian truth is in danger in many hearts.

As such, his reason is chiefly polemical. In his book, Luther takes Erasmus to task, and systematically refutes the humanist's theology bit by bit. He begins by taking to task Erasmus' theology in his own words, showing the inconsistencies of his own language and theology. In the process Luther confesses that, in contending with Erasmus, he has become more sure about his own position. He says,

I owe you no small thanks, for you have made me far more sure of my own position by letting me see the case for free choice put forward with all the energy of so distinguished and powerful a mind.

This is striking because here we see that the truths of the Reformation were not developed in an ivory tower. Rather, truth is always developed in the crucible of real controversy. It is not developed in isolation, but is always developed on the battlefield where heresies rage in fury against the truth.

After Luther tears down Erasmus' arguments, he positively sets forth the Reformation doctrine of free will as it is found in the Scriptures.

 

As such, his purpose is also instructional, hoping also that in this way Erasmus himself might be brought to a correct understanding of the truth. In concluding his Introduction, Luther writes,

Therefore we must pray to God that he may open my mouth and your heart, and the hearts of all men, and that he may himself be present in our midst as the master who informs both our speaking and hearing.

We bring this out because often it is said that Luther is a man who is so aggressive in his polemics that he forgets the welfare of his opponents. But here we see him defending the truth in love. His desire is that his opponent might come to a better understanding of the truth.

Luther's Approach

Luther begins his reply to Erasmus by calling attention to the importance of doctrine.

 

Erasmus has made the statement that doctrinal assertions are not important. Erasmus' preference is a position of no position; that is, doctrinal neutrality and uncertainty.

 

However, in the world of theology, there is no such thing as neutrality and uncertainty. Either one admits that truth is absolute and stands for it or he is against it.

 

 Luther correctly points out that Erasmus, in rejecting the doctrinal assertions in the Scriptures, is really taking sides with the Sophists. This is a lesson that must be learned. Why is it that Luther, with the other Reformers, insisted on the importance of doctrine?

 

This is because religion is not a mere matter of opinion. God has revealed His truth in the Scriptures. The Scriptures define for us what we must believe. Luther says,

• The Holy Spirit is no Skeptic, and the things He has written in our hearts are not doubts or opinions, but assertions - surer and more certain than sense and life itself.

This of course boils down to the fact that Erasmus does not subscribe to the doctrine of the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture.

 

• Erasmus stands in the Roman Catholic tradition of holding both Scripture and traditions as authoritative. But still, both are not enough for him. As a humanist scholar, he is compelled by his own system to include also human reason and philosophies. This precisely is Erasmus' problem. It is strange that the man who gives us the Greek New Testament should turn his mind and heart against the doctrines contained in it. In writing in defense of free will, Erasmus refused to submit himself to Scripture. And it is this that Luther first takes issue with. He writes,

• Is it not enough to have submitted your judgment to Scripture? Do you submit it to the Church as well? - why, what can the Church settle that Scripture did not settle first?

Hence, Luther, when he takes the humanist to task, begins with a positive setting forth of the doctrine of Scripture.

 

 

One of the Reformation's mottos is Sola Scriptura, that is, Scripture alone.

 

Scripture must be our sole authority in matters of doctrine and life.

 

• As such, the issue between Luther and Erasmus is really between truth and error, reason and grace, and an issue of belief and unbelief.

Secondly, Luther's approach is exegetical.

 

• He says several times that the issue is an issue in hermeneutics. He accuses Erasmus of twisting Scripture, and wresting the Word to his own destruction.
• Erasmus is man-centered both in his theology and in his method. is utterly man-centered.
• Erasmus even remarked that Scripture has not dealt at length with the issue of free choice and seems to have left the issue open. He admits that Scripture is obscure about the matter. Erasmus in fact makes a strange classification of matters between that which may be known and that which may not be known.

Luther rejects Erasmus' moderation. He insists on definite doctrinal assertions.

 

This is because Scripture is itself clear. Here again we are back to the issue of Scripture.

 

This doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture is clear.

 

A list of helps how one may elicit the true sense of Scripture.

 

1. The first rule he lays down is the most fundamental principle in hermeneutics, that is, Scripture interprets Scripture.
2. Secondly, he insists that the way to know the Scriptures is to have our minds opened by Christ.
3. Along with this, too, he asserts that the Spirit is required for the understanding of the Scriptures. Not only is the truth of the Word made clear in our hearts by the Spirit, but  that truths are made known in the preaching.
4. The former he calls internal clarity, the latter he calls external clarity

 

.

Erasmus omits both of these principles in interpretation.

 

1. He fails to interpret Scripture from Scripture;
2. he lacks a spiritual mind;
3. and therefore both his approach and theology are really Christless.

 

 

 

 

Who Is the "shepherd" in Ecclesiastes 12:11: Should We Study Scripture

 10The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly. 11The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd. 12But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body.…

11 The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. 12 My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. ESV

The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd. NAS

The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. KJV

 

The Question Is Ask Should We Study The Bible Or Its Not All That Important?

So the question that is often ask, did Moses and David, and Solomon know that they were writing the very Word of God when they sat down to write their books, Genesis, Psalms and Song of Solomon!  And many will say “no.”   Some will say that Proverbs and Ecclesiastes , because when you read them they don’t seem to be written by in a bibical worldview,  so they say they were just wrtting what they were thinking.

When you are not careful in your interpretation of a verse or even words you could arrive at a wrong idea of the meaning of the text.

In the verse there is reference to “one shepherd.”
Treasury of Scripture  gives us some references:

Acts 2:37

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

Ezra 9:8

“But now, for a brief moment, the LORD our God has been gracious in leaving us a remnant and giving us a firm place in his sanctuary, and so our God gives light to our eyes and a little relief in our bondage.

Proverbs 1:6

for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise.

Proverbs 22:17

Pay attention and turn your ear to the sayings of the wise; apply your heart to what I teach,

Ecclesiastes 7:5

It is better to heed the rebuke of a wise person than to listen to the song of fools.

Ecclesiastes 10:12

Words from the mouth of the wise are gracious, but fools are consumed by their own lips.

Isaiah 22:23

I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father.

Treasury of Scripture  which I often use for references
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened
by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. kjv   One Shepherd  (esv)

as goads

1.  Jeremiah 23:29 Is not my word like as a fire? said the LORD; and like a hammer that …
2. Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, …
3. Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said …
4. 2 Corinthians 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through …
5. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any …

masters

1. John 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, Are you a master of Israel, and know …
2. given
3. Genesis 49:24 But his bow stayed in strength, and the arms of his hands were made …
4. Psalm 23:1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
5. Psalm 80:1 Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, you that lead Joseph like a flock; …
6. Isaiah 40:11 He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs …
7. Ezekiel 34:23 And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, …
8. John 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
9. Hebrews 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, …
10. 1 Peter 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a crown

Matthew Henry gives this view:

 12:8-14  The Shepherd of Israel is the Giver of inspired wisdom. Teachers and guides all receive their communications from him. The title is applied in Scripture to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The prophets sought diligently, what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. To write many books was not suited to the shortness of human life, and would be weariness to the writer, and to the reader; and then was much more so to both than it is now. All things would be vanity and vexation, except they led to this conclusion, That to fear God, and keep his commandments, is the whole of man. The fear of God includes in it all the affections of the soul towards him, which are produced by the Holy Spirit. There may be terror where there is no love, nay, where there is hatred. But this is different from the gracious fear of God, as the feelings of an affectionate child.

 

The fear of God, is often put for the whole of true religion in the heart, and includes its practical results in the life. Let us attend to the one thing needful, and now come to him as a merciful Saviour, who will soon come as an almighty Judge, when he will bring to light the things of darkness, and manifest the counsels of all hearts. Why does God record in his word, that ALL IS VANITY, but to keep us from deceiving ourselves to our ruin? He makes our duty to be our interest. May it be graven in all our hearts. Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is all that concerns man.

 

John Gill comments:  John Gill was the pastor of the church where Charles Spurgeon came after John Gill who was there for 50 years

John Gill

John Gill (23 November 1697 – 14 October 1771) was an English Baptist pastor, biblical scholar, and theologian who held to a firm Calvinistic soteriology. Born in Kettering, Northamptonshire, he attended Kettering Grammar School where he mastered the Latin classics and learned Greek by age 11. He continued self-study in everything from logic to Hebrew, his love for the latter remaining throughout his life.

His first pastoral work was as an intern assisting John Davis at Higham Ferrers in 1718 at age 21. He became pastor at the Strict Baptist church at Goat Yard Chapel, Horsleydown, Southwark in 1719. His pastorate lasted 51 years. In 1757 his congregation needed larger premises and moved to a Carter Lane, St. Olave’s Street, Southwark. This Baptist church was once pastored by Benjamin Keach and would later become the New Park Street Chapel and then the Metropolitan Tabernacle pastored by Charles Spurgeon.

During Gill’s ministry the church strongly supported the preaching of George Whitefield at nearby Kennington Common.

 

Which are given from one shepherd. All these words of the wise, collections, etc., proceed from one source, or are set forth by one authority. Who is] this shepherd? Some say that he is the archisynagogus, the president of the assemblies of wise men, to whose authority all these public utterances are subjected. But we do not know that such supervision existed or was exercised at the time when Koheleth wrote; and, as we saw above, there is probably no reference to any such assemblies in the passage.

 

The “one shepherd” is doubtless Jehovah, who is called the Shepherd of Israel, who feeds his people like a flock, etc. (see Genesis 48:15; Genesis 49:24; Psalm 23:1; Psalm 80:1, etc.). The appellation is here used as concinnous with the thought of the ox-goad, intimating that God watches and leads his people like a tender shepherd and a skilful farmer. This is an important claim to inspiration. All these varied utterances, whatever form they take, whether his own or his predecessor’s, are outcomes of wisdom, and proceed from him who is only wise, Almighty God. It is no disparagement of this work to imply that it is not the production of the true Solomon; Koheleth is ready to avow himself the writer, and yet claims a hearing as being equally moved by heavenly influence. It is like St. Paul’s assertion (1 Corinthians 7:40), “I think that I also have the Spirit of God.”

 

When you see in the text “shepherd”  in the kjv you might not view this as the Great Shepherd, but as we see what Gill says, its should be “Shepherd” which the ESV  capitalized it.  Which does make good sense because the ancient Hebrews often referred to God as their “shepherd” as in Psalms 23:l

And as the writer sums up his teaching by calling us to “fear God and keep His commandments (12:13) would give evidences that the “Shepherd” here in these verse se would be our Creator.

 

THEN WHEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY THAT THESE ARE WORDS THAT GOD GAVE THEM TO WRITE IN TERMS THAT WOULD BE KNOWN TO THE WRITER.

So to study the Scritpures would be of a benefit to every Believer.

We will address the reason the Preacher said the other comment in these verses  next

Proof Texing or Theological Interpretation

Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Landmarks in Christian Scholarship) Kevin J. Vanhoozer KE $18.99

Is there a meaning in the Bible, or is meaning rather a matter of who is reading or of how one reads? Does Christian doctrine have anything to contribute to debates about interpretation, literary theory, and post modernity? These are questions of crucial importance for contemporary biblical studies and theology alike.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  



Kevin Vanhoozer contends that the postmodern crisis in hermeneutics---'incredulity towards meaning,' a deep--set skepticism concerning the possibility of correct interpretation---is fundamentally a crisis in theology provoked by an inadequate view of God and by the announcement of God's 'death.'

Part 1 examines the ways in which deconstruction and radical reader--response criticism 'undo' the traditional concepts of author, text, and reading. Dr. Vanhoozer engages critically with the work of Derrida, Rorty, and Fish, among others, and demonstrates the detrimental influence of the postmodern 'suspicion of hermeneutics' on biblical studies.

In Part 2, Dr. Vanhoozer defends the concept of the author and the possibility of literary knowledge by drawing on the resources of Christian doctrine and by viewing meaning in terms of communicative action. He argues that there is a meaning in the text, that it can be known with relative adequacy, and that readers have a responsibility to do so by cultivating 'interpretive virtues.'

Successive chapters build on Trinitarian theology and speech act philosophy in order to treat the metaphysics, methodology, and morals of interpretation.

From a Christian perspective, meaning and interpretation are ultimately grounded in God's own communicative action in creation, in the canon, and preeminently in Christ.

Prominent features in Part 2 include a new account of the author's intention and of the literal sense, the reclaiming of the distinction between meaning and significance in terms of Word and Spirit, and the image of the reader as a disciple--martyr, whose vocation is to witness to something other than oneself.

Is There a Meaning in This Text? guides the student toward greater confidence in the authority, clarity, and relevance of Scripture, and a well--reasoned expectation to understand accurately the message of the Bible.

Is There a Meaning in This Text? is a comprehensive and creative analysis of current debates over biblical hermeneutics that draws on interdisciplinary resources, all coordinated by Christian theology. It makes a significant contribution to biblical interpretation that will be of interest to readers in a number of fields.

The intention of the book is to revitalize and enlarge the concept of author--oriented interpretation and to restore confidence that readers of the Bible can reach understanding. The result is a major challenge to the central assumptions of postmodern biblical scholarship and a constructive alternative proposal---an Augustinian hermeneutic---that reinvigorates the notion of biblical authority and finds a new exegetical practice that recognizes the importance of both the reader's situation and the literal sense.

The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger (Mar 6, 1997) - Kindle eBook
$59.00 Print Price $34.49 Kindle Edition
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce and Frederick Fyvie Bruce (Dec 31, 1942) - Kindle eBook
$15.00 Print Price $9.99 Kindle Edition
The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce (Aug 20, 2010) - Kindle eBook
$30.00 Print Price $14.99 Kindle Edition

Theological Interpretation of Scripture: An Introduction and Preliminary Evaluation: Gregg R. Allison: Professor of Christian Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Review of Kevin Vanhoozer TIS Theological Interpretation or Theological Exegesis of Scripture. 9 pages PDF 
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/08/sbjt_v14_n2_allison_only.pdf

Spiritual Readiang: A Study of the Christian Practice of Reading Scripture: Durham E. Theses: Durham U. PDF 264 pages Harvey, Angela Lou
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3916/1/Angela_Harvey_PhD_dissertation_July_2012.pdf?DDD32+
In Defense of Proof-Texting: R. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain ; PDF 10 pages
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-3/JETS_54-3_589-606_Allen%20&%20Swain.pdf

Parenthetical references or footnote/ endnote references to biblical passages that undergird some doctrinal claim made, whether in a dogmatics textbook, a catechism, or a confession of faith.

Protestant theologians were not naive realists. Rather, the assumption weas that theology is a sacred science, whose "first principles" are revealed by God alone and therefore that constructive theological argumentation must proceed on the basis of God's revealved truth, particularly as that revealed truth is communicated through individual passages of Holy Scripture, often understood as sedes doctrinae.
see Daniel J. Treier, "Proof text"

 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of Scripture" Vanhoozer
"Do we act as if we really believe that the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written?" Wayne Grudem's ETS presidential address. JETS 43 (2000) 5-26

i.e. that they way forward for evangelical theology is to pursue "whole Bible exegesis." i.e. "not just what one verse says, or one book, but the whole of the Bible, interpreted and applied rightly to the Church today." (That it takes the full panorama of biblical teaching (being not just NT or OT study, but "whole Bible study)

In Grudem's Systematic Theology he offers a directive and then suggests three steps to achieve that goal:
 
First the directive: "We should study systematic theology by collecting and understanding all the relevant passages of Scripture on any give topic.
Second, he offers the trhee steps:

One: Find all the relevant verses
Two: Read, make notes on and try to summarize the points made in the relevant verses

Three: The teachings of the various verses should be summarized into one or more points that the Bible affirms bouttaht subject.

i.e he does note that some verses may be pertinent even though they do not use particular words keyed to that topic, but the overwhelming push is to base systematic theology upon word studies.

The theologian finds verses with words and phrases related to thatt topic across the biblical canon by using a good concordance. Then they try to state each verse's or section's teaching. Finally, they try to boil down these many summaries into a description of the whole Bible's message. In the end, you have a doctrinal statement capped off with parenthetical references to texts that it summarizes.

And Vanhoozer in reply to this says this minimizes the Bible's deployment in theology, downplaying the systematic links between various topics of theology.

Vanhoozer says too: "It is one thing to know how a bibical author spoke or thought about a particular issue in the context of ancient Israel or the early church, quite another to relate those words and thoughts about a particular issue to the message of the Bible (birth control and gun control for example) as a whole and to the significance of the Bible's teaching for us today."" Voice and the Actor"

Vanhoozer also states: That proof-texting "to force every biblical sentence into the same mold in a kind of "one size fits all" hermeneutic is to read roughshod over the diverse literary genres of Scritpure." "Proof-texting assumes a uniform propositional revelation spread evenly throughout Scripture: one verse one vote. Not only does this approach risk decontextualizing biblical discourse, it also leaves unclear just how text cited in support acutally lend their support to the point in question.
(while at the same he himselves does the same kind of "proof texing" )
  We need to remember when focusing on methodology, what Jeffrey Stout said
"preoccuptation with method is like clearning your through: it can go on for only so long before you lose your audience:" Ethics after Babel: The Languages of Morals and Their Discountents:

Some scholars suffer from what Wayne Grudem calls "exegetophobia". That is evangelical theologians interacted with secular sources and historical theology much more frequently than an biblical texts.

Biblical Interpretation and Bibical Propechy

 Prophecy: Biblical Interpretation and Biblical Prophecy

Principles of Biblical Interpretation of Prophecy

 There are many excellent books on the topic of Bible interpretation. In fact, this subject is so broad that it has its own technical name: Hermeneutics.  The word hermeneutics comes from the Greek hermeneo, which means ‘to translate’ or ‘ to interpret.’  For a general purpose book about principles of Bible interpretation we recommend “Living by the Book” by Howard Hendricks.

Interpretation of Bible prophecy takes special care, and there are books written just about prophecy hermeneutics.  But, for the sake of simplicity, we submit this list of rules for your consideration.  Please feel free to comment on these guidelines and suggest additions or modifications.

1 – Understand that all true Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable to every believer.

• Since a large part of the Bible is prophecy, that portion of God’s Word should not be ignored or minimized.  The literal fulfillment of prophecies about the first coming of Jesus Christ are the greatest proof that the Bible is inspired, and sets the standard for a literal interpretation of End Times events.

• No portion of Scripture should be set aside as unimportant or irrelevant.  All Scripture is worthy of sincere study and application.

• ·       2 Timothy 3:16-17

2 – Understand progressive revelation.

• Part of God’s plan for the human race was introduced in Genesis, but later Scripture added additional information and understand culminating with the Gospels, and the rest of the New Testament. Later inspiration often added to previously revealed knowledge, but never negated what was already given.

Though God does guide us as individuals in various ways, any true revelation of that sort will never conflict with or supersede the written and generally accepted canon of the 66 books of the Bible.

·       Hebrews 1:1-2; Ephesians 3:1-11

3 – Understand the language and culture of the time of the writing.

• The original biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) are full of ancient root meanings, idioms, and grammatical nuances that require intense study, and for most of us, dependence on reliable scholarship.

• Cultural factors must be considered in order to grasp the impact and meaning of any portion of Scripture.  In other words, how would the people of that time understand the plain meaning of the event, story, or teaching?

• ·       1 Corinthians 8 – Eating meat offered to idols

4 – Understand the necessity of studying any Bible portion in the context of the passage in which it is found, and by comparing it with other passages of Scripture before trying to determine the truth about the matter.

• Let the Bible interpret itself wherever possible. Otherwise, as has often been said, “The Bible can be used to prove anything.”

• ·       2 Timothy 2:15

5 – Understand that every passage of Scripture has a literal meaning, though it may also use symbolic language and have additional applications.

• The Bible contains much symbolism, including figurative language, similes, metaphors, parables, dreams and visions of beasts and other objects.  But when any symbol is properly interpreted, often by another passage of Scripture, it has one literal meaning. This concept is also called the grammatical-historical method of interpretation.

• ·       Genesis 49·       Revelation 12:3; 13:1 with Revelation 17: 9-14

6 – Understand the value of prayerful study, brotherhood and discussion in applying the Scripture to current times.

• Jesus taught that when the Holy Spirit came He would give enlightenment to the Disciples. Even the best of teachers can be mistaken, but as it says in Proverbs 11:14, “Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety.” (NKJV)

• ·       Acts 17:11

7 – Understand that it is unwise to be dogmatic about one’s own point of view in regard to future developments.

As seen in the Gospels, some facts about the life and work of Jesus Christ could have been described in advance by knowledge of Old Testament prophecies, but others could only be seen in retrospect.

The Bible requires belief in the eventual return of Christ in power and glory, but the timing of various events (including the Rapture) should not be a test of fellowship among orthodox Christians.

8 – Understand the differences between Israel and the Church.

• The Bible can not be understood if one does not see the many distinctions between Israel and the Church.

9 – Understand the cultural influence of later historical periods in the interpretation of Scripture.

• Commentators differ widely in their interpretation of prophecy, depending, in part, on their place in history. Their views were influenced by world affairs of their time and are often contradictory. They must constantly be held up to the higher standard of the Word of God itself.  Here are some examples of these historical periods.

• The strengths and weaknesses of various periods of Church history are given in short messages to the Seven Churches in Revelation 2 & 3.