Thread: Whose Lens Are You Using?

Many people feel somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that the confessions of the church are a lens through which we view Scripture. To them, it smacks too much of putting the confessions on a par with Scripture. There is always danger in elevating man's words to the level of Scripture. However, is there another way in which we can understand this relationship?

Let's put it this way: everyone has lenses of some sort when they come to Scripture. No one can interpret Scripture from a completely clean slate. Let me repeat this: everyone has lenses through which they read the Scriptures. The question, then, has been racketing about in the wrong quadrant for a lot of people. The question is not whether one will have a lens through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which lens is the correct lens?

The reason this becomes important is that there are really only two alternatives. Either one takes the lens of a church's confession, in which case one is entering into the collegiality of the church's reading of Scripture, or one is inventing one's own lens that will be on a par with the standards of the church, yet separate from it. At the very least, it could be said to be bordering on arrogance to think that one's own lens has the same kind of authority as what the church has said.

I can hear the objection already: "You sound Roman Catholic." On the contrary, for I assume the difference between Scripture as the norming norm, and the confessions as the normed norm. Therefore, the confessions are not infallible and may be changed (as they were when they came across the Atlantic into America in the 18th century). The problem here is that anything other than a biblicistic understanding of Scriptural understanding is often taken to be Roman Catholic. This is simply not the case. The Reformers loved the church and highly respected her opinions. They respected her opinions above their own, in fact. And this is really the point. In submitting to the confessions, we acknowledge that the church is our mother. The irony of all this is that there are some today who claim that confessionalists are not being very courteous to the church. As a matter of fact, it is the non-confessionalists who are being discourteous to the church's opinion.

I view the Bible through sin covered lenses.

Originally Posted by Southern Twang

I view the Bible through sin covered lenses.

You also have an anointing of the Spirit, Mr Twang (I John 2:27). And that's from someone who doesn't always see eye to eye with you on th****my.

These grey, laughing smileys are so ugly. There must be something better out there. They're better than the awful dancing bananas though

We also don't just accept the "lens" of the Confession(s) without first of all examining the lens itself in the light of Scripture to see if it is a good lens.

The lens has been given to us by God in the sense that it is the product of 1600 years of the Spirit's illumination. Those primitivists who want to have the Bible and the Holy Spirit alone, are ignoring the fact that when the Spirit inspired the complete Bible he didn't stop His work with regard to Scripture there, but God in His providence made sure that the Bible was preserved, and the Holy Spirit has not ceased to "unpack" and illumine the Scriptures these almost 2,000 years.

To ignore this is to foolishly despise a great work of God and to start again with the Bible "hot off the press" as it were, reading the Bible in the relatively gloomily lit room of the 1st century.

One of the major things that is overlooked in the Reformers is that they used the Early Church Fathers to refute their Contemporary Roman Apologists.

They loved the Church.

So the Reformed Church has its reading of scripture, and the Catholic Church has it's reading of scripture. How does one choose which reading is correct without looking through one's own lens?

Originally Posted by louis_jp

So the Reformed Church has its reading of scripture, and the Catholic Church has it's reading of scripture. How does one choose which reading is correct without looking through one's own lens?

And that is where the problem lays. Where does the lens come from? Where does the authority of tradition come from? Men or the Scriptures?

It wouldn't be by one's own lens, but by using one's head to discern which lens is closer to what Scripture teaches. The Holy Spirit leads believers into all truth.

Scripture interprets scripture.

I agree that scripture interprets scripture and that the Holy Spirit leads believers in to all truth.

BUT, why do Christians come up with so many interpretations that ultimately divide? There are plenty of faithful Christians who seek God earnestly yet come to totally different conclusions.

Somethin' ain't right here!

Incorrect interpretation is always due to sin. If sin were not in the world, we would be in complete unity of opinion on all things relating to God. This is what will happen in the new heavens and the new earth.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

It wouldn't be by one's own lens, but by using one's head to discern which lens is closer to what Scripture teaches. The Holy Spirit leads believers into all truth.

It makes my head hurt thinking about these issues.

The problem for me is that your post does sound Catholic, in the sense that it is at least very similar to the argument Catholics use to refute sola scriptura. We say that that the Reformers rejected man-made tradition and went back to the authority of scripture. They say the Reformers simply substituted their own interpretation of scripture for that of the church.

My own way of responding to that has been to presume that at some level God does speak to the individual directly -- as you said, the Holy Spirit leads believers into the truth. But at the same time, as you rightly argue, there is a need and a proper place for collective thinking. I guess I'm asking whether there is a logical or principled way to draw a balance here.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Incorrect interpretation is always due to sin. If sin were not in the world, we would be in complete unity of opinion on all things relating to God. This is what will happen in the new heavens and the new earth.

Which leads us back to my first post. This is quite troubling to me (or rather should I say humbling). Can we really know truth or at least apprehend a chunk of it? Can we be dogmatic and claim others are wrong?

Originally Posted by Southern Twang

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Incorrect interpretation is always due to sin. If sin were not in the world, we would be in complete unity of opinion on all things relating to God. This is what will happen in the new heavens and the new earth.

Which leads us back to my first post. This is quite troubling to me (or rather should I say humbling). Can we really know truth or at least apprehend a chunk of it? Can we be dogmatic and claim others are wrong?

Unless we want to say that everyone is right, we have to make some claims. There is a humility in always recognizing that we could be wrong on something. We are as prone to sin as the next person. But to say that we can't know truth is to say that we can't have any convictions. It should be a daily, humble reliance on God that He will help us into the truth. Anything as Christians that we believe that is true about God is because God has told us, not because it came out of our brains.

It makes my head hurt thinking about these issues.

The problem for me is that your post does sound Catholic, in the sense that it is at least very similar to the argument Catholics use to refute sola scriptura. We say that that the Reformers rejected man-made tradition and went back to the authority of scripture. They say the Reformers simply substituted their own interpretation of scripture for that of the church.

My own way of responding to that has been to presume that at some level God does speak to the individual directly -- as you said, the Holy Spirit leads believers into the truth. But at the same time, as you rightly argue, there is a need and a proper place for collective thinking. I guess I'm asking whether there is a logical or principled way to draw a balance here.

Louis, it sounds Catholic because the majority of modern evangelicalism is purely biblicistic, and anything that isn't biblicism is Roman Catholic, according to most evangelicals today. I have already outlined the difference between my position and Catholicism. My position is precisely what the Reformers held to as well. They were no biblicists. A denial of Sola Scriptura only happens when the confession is held to be infallible. Sola Scriptura is not soli scriptura, implying that we don't need any help to understand the Bible whatsoever. If that were true, then we couldn't even use a translation of the text, because that would be using someone else's help.

In the Roman Church the Authority doesn't lay in the Scripture. The church has authority over it. In the Early Church and the Reformers the Word of God is authoritative over the Church. Big difference. Lane doesn't sound Roman at all.

Who claims infallibility? I do believe the Pope does.

We do not claim infallibility in our confessions. Only in the Word of God.

Good points are being raised here. Many arguments against Sola Scriptura are simplistic and miss the point (John's gospel says Jesus did things that aren't in Scripture, so there!!!) but the matter of how one interprets Scripture, and whether the lens is correct, is a powerful argument on all sides. A reading of the early chapters in Kelly's Early Christian Doctrine reveals what I've read elsewhere, namely, that the early church for the first few centuries really made no separation between Scripture and "tradition" and references to extra-biblical traditions were usually in regards to liturgy, penitential discipline, methods of prayer, etc. Kieth Mathison's book on the topic was quite interesting but left me feeling a bit conflicted, namely because he equated this early position of the church with Sola Scriptura and quoted some church fathers saying things like "unless it can be proved from Scripture, don't accept it...", yet those same fathers came to some very different conclusions than protestants do.

The big, big, big, big, big problem to me with the principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture" is that "the clear explains the unclear." OK...but what's "clear" to a Calvinist is "unclear" to an Arminian. To a Calvinist, "nobody can snatch them out of his hand" clearly teaches eternal perseverance, therefore 2 Peter's "the last state is worse than the first" must be interpreted in light of that. Someone who sees 2 Peter as clearly teaching that one can truly fall away will interpret the "unclear" verse in John as teaching that. Who is the arbiter of which is more "clear" than the other? I've listened to people with expertise in Greek, Hebrew, grammar, history, and all kinds of stuff hurl arguments back and forth with no end in sight.

The Reformers did, in fact, love and respect the church. Their views on Scripture sound much more like the early church than those of the medeival Catholics. Yet together with the early church's belief that dogma must be revealed in Scripture was a belief that only THE CHURCH could properly interpret that Scripture against the gnostics, Arians, or what have you. So one must even presuppose a definition of "the church" to have the discussion. It was easy to appeal to the succession of bishops against those groups that came from outside the established church--harder when heresies like Arianism arose from bishops within the established church. Still, the RC/EO will point out that, however much the Reformers respected "the church as mother," they stepped outside the traditional boundaries that had defined the church. And of course the East will point out that Rome stepped outside those boundaries centuries earlier and that the Reformers were reacting against doctrines that never were properly Christian to begin with.

Round and round we go!

But that point about "who decides what's clear" without each individual becoming a church unto himself...man, that's tough...

-----Added 8/14/2009 at 12:29:29 EST-----

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

In the Roman Church the Authority doesn't lay in the Scripture. The church has authority over it. In the Early Church and the Reformers the Word of God is authoritative over the Church. Big difference. Lane doesn't sound Roman at all.

Who claims infallibility? I do believe the Pope does.

We do not claim infallibility in our confessions. Only in the Word of God.

Would it be more accurate to say the early church saw the church and Scripture as inseparable? Scritpure and "tradition" were basically seen as coincident. Even today the Eastern church criticizes Rome for elevating tradition above Scripture, rather than seeing them as an organic whole. I think the east has some pretty funky interpretations, but they never dogmatized things or declared infallibility in the way the Pope did. Of course they do see their dogmatic tradition (mainly the 7 councils) as being infallible, but then they also see those as having been guided by the Holy Spirit. They may be wrong but at least they're consistent.

At any rate I've discussed these matters with many Roman Catholics and remain convinced that we Protestants have the better arguments. But when I've discussed with Orthodox, I tried at first to apply the same arguments against "tradition" and fell flat in a hurry because they don't apply. They very much hold to a view that Scripture/Tradition is a false dichotomy--and they believe their view most closely matches the early church.

I never realized that when I think in these categories I think ONLY of Rome vs. Reformers--i.e. Western belief.

If I am not mistaken the Early Western Church nearly became Arian as many of her bishops were clinging to it. The thing that brought her back to truth lay in the fact that she did refer back to Scripture at the Council of Nicea. I would agree that you can't separate the two as one belongs to the other by authority. One is born from the other. By the Word of God the Church has been born because it is incorruptible seed. I am not sure how coincident tradition and scripture are. One has authority over the other. In the understanding of the Church fathers, they knew they were fallible. They also understood the Word of God wasn't.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

It wouldn't be by one's own lens, but by using one's head to discern which lens is closer to what Scripture teaches. The Holy Spirit leads believers into all truth.

You've moved the problem from eyes to head. I guess in addition to my Westminster lenses, I'll now need to wear my tin foil hat to avoid malevolent influence!

Here's an assertion: All lenses, because they are either human made or smudged as soon as used, are a bit dark. If I read the bible with different lenses {Roman tradition, Reformed tradition, Emergent tradition, my own tradition} then in practice if the different lenses produce different results we look for one which agrees with our own lens because it is irrational to go against our own personal rationality as best as we can reason and pray things out. There's no way around that other than discarding our own responsibility (which is what your typical Roman Catholic does).

As you also say, I want to emphasise, here's the chilli in the salad: We do not need anyone to teach us because we have the Spirit of Truth who will lead us into all truth. That's a fact undiminished by the corollary fact that we must test the spirits against the yardstick of the historical church.

The modern church is almost gnostic in its emphasis on individual faith.

Originally Posted by louis_jp

The problem for me is that your post does sound Catholic, in the sense that it is at least very similar to the argument Catholics use to refute sola scriptura. We say that that the Reformers rejected man-made tradition and went back to the authority of scripture. They say the Reformers simply substituted their own interpretation of scripture for that of the church.

If an argument does not sound Catholic then it is probably wrong, I realise that you probbaly meant to say "Roman Catholic" but even so the point has been well made that the Reformers (and all orthodox Christians) love the Church. That is the whole reason why we are Protestants on this board, we are protesting against the corruption of the Catholic Church by Rome, the Catholic Church is not something that we can ever give up on or see as something that cannot be reformed.

Rev. Danny Hyde explains in Why We Have Creeds and Confessions,

“But our church has no creed but Christ!” No doubt, you too have heard this from many Christians or have said it yourself. This bumper–sticker type slogan has virtually become a part of what it means to be Christian in contemporary churches. Have you ever stopped to think about what this statement means, though? This slogan is actually one of the most ironic statements anyone can make. You see, when a person or even a church states that they have “no creed but Christ,” they are ironically, in fact, making a “creed.” To say, “I have no creed,” is itself a creed! What we as Christians need to understand is that this is not a biblical way of thinking or acting, but in fact, shows that Christians have been influenced by modern philosophy. When someone makes the statement, “I have no creed but Christ,” he is actually falling into the trap of popular modern philosophy, when it says, “There is no absolute truth;” for, the statement, “There is no absolute truth” is itself a statement of absolute truth!

Let us all agree that everyone, including Christians and churches, have some system of belief behind what they say. Whether they speak of believing a particular creed or confession of faith or none at all, they all have a theology and way of thinking. Anytime you explain simply to a friend what you believe, whether he is a believer or an unbeliever, you are confessing your creed; you are confessing your faith in a way that explains how you understand the Bible.

He adds,

Since we all have a personal creed and a way of confessing our faith to the world, this shows us that creeds and confessions of faith are not bad things. We should not let the word “creed” frighten us. Therefore, when you hear us say, “We believe the Apostles’ Creed,” or, “We believe what the Heidelberg Catechism teaches,” do not think this means that we are somehow part of the Roman Catholic Church.

Instead, to be a “confessional church” is to be a church that believes and confesses the Word of God as summarized in the great creeds and confessions of the historic Church; it is to be a church firmly rooted in the Scriptures. From the very beginning of Israel’s life as a community through its maturation in the New Testament church, the people of God have confessed what they believe with brief summaries of the Faith. We call these summaries “creeds and confessions.”

Before learning about confessional Protestantism and/or the Reformed Faith, I thought that biblicism was the only possible alternative to the Roman Catholic view. Little did I know that I was wrong.

One thing I noticed from those men and women who attempt to refute the doctrines and practices of Rome and yet spurn the use of the ecumenical creeds and the historic Protestant confessions (either explicitly or implicitly) is that they stumble over the use of theological terms (e.g., justification) which makes discussions with informed and well-read Roman Catholics rather unfruitful. What is worse is that these same and women who are purportedly defending the same views contradict themselves on vital doctrinal matters once they attempt to explain what they actually believe. Instead of benefit, the slogan "no creed but Christ" does so much harm to the cause of the Christian Faith.

Originally Posted by Southern Twang

I agree that scripture interprets scripture and that the Holy Spirit leads believers in to all truth.

BUT, why do Christians come up with so many interpretations that ultimately divide? There are plenty of faithful Christians who seek God earnestly yet come to totally different conclusions.

Somethin' ain't right here!

It's all in God's hands. Different believers and branches of the Church are at different stages of maturity and health, like a tree that has some dead branches, some immature branches, some diseased branches and some healthy branches.

As a postmillennialist I believe that the best of theology will one day be embraced by the church throughout the world. The Puritans were centuries ahead of their time.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ : Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:11-16)

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

It's all in God's hands. Different believers and branches of the Church are at different stages of maturity and health, like a tree that has some dead branches, some immature branches, some diseased branches and some healthy branches.

As a postmillennialist I believe that the best of theology will one day be embraced by the church throughout the world. The Puritans were centuries ahead of their time.

As a postmillennialist I agree. But Theonomy will be a part of that best theology

You can't come to the Bible "neutral", and you can't make a "neutral" examination of the varying doctrines which different groups claim that Scripture teaches, or of the varying methods by which they arrive at their conclusions. In studying hermeneutics, as much as in anything else, your biases, blind spots, and intellectual capacities come into play.

But this should not lead us to nullifidianism or skepticism. God calls us to faith in His word, as a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces; His speech can shatter even our presuppositions and can tear scales from our eyes more effectively than fish gall. And as you read how people interpret Scripture, yes, there are many variations; but there is also an astonishing phenomenon of people with hugely different backgrounds and capacities independently arriving at similar conclusions.

In analysing a confession or a hermeneutic there are tools that can help us avoid at least some blind spots: humility, self-awareness, logic. And in interpreting Scripture there is likewise help in the scope and context of a passage, in the analogy of Scripture, in the interpretive tradition of the Christian Church. And of course, Scripture itself contains statements that point us to hermeneutical principles, e.g., "To him give all the prophets witness", and examples of the proper hermeneutic in action. Hopefully this means that good interpretation is progressively self-correcting.

But the main thing I want to add, is that we should draw a distinction between the framework of our thought, which is what I understand Lane to mean by "lenses", and conceptual tools. For instance, it is one conceptual tool to consider that these things written for our admonition; it is another conceptual to consider that these things are all part of one narrative that is heading towards a definite climax. In our limitations we learn about these tools only gradually, and are rarely able to exercise them all together and at once, but there is nothing wrong with applying a variety of conceptual tools in our study of Scripture. However, having multiple frameworks of thought is extremely likely to lead to incoherence and contradiction, and having an inadequate framework of thought is extremely likely to lead to blind spots. What we must always remember if that something in Scripture seems wrong, either we have not understood it, or we are wrong: Scripture's entire authority is absolutely unquestionable, because it is the word of Christ.

greenbaggins, Rev. Lane Keister said the following:
And I thought I would like to comment on each phrase because I am an ex roman catholic who is now a Reformed Presbyterian Protestant.

1-"The question is not whether one will have a lens through which to interpret Scripture, but rather which lens is the correct lens?" The roman catholic church interprets scripture-true but the magestarium of that church has a teaching of Scripture and tradition and sometimes tradition of the magestarium has contradicted scripture and placed papal teachings at some times above scripture. It is one of the major reasons i am now a Protestant and no longer a roman catholic.


2-"I assume the difference between Scripture as the norming norm, and the confessions as the normed norm. Therefore, the confessions are not infallible and may be changed (as they were when they came across the Atlantic into America in the 18th century). The problem here is that anything other than a biblicistic understanding of Scriptural understanding is often taken to be Roman Catholic." No it is not. I adhere however as a Presbyterian to the Westminter confession and standards as the norm or guide now to interpreting and reading scripture but I am a Protestant and believe in the doctrines of the Protestant reformation one being sola sciptura!


3"The Reformers loved the church and highly respected her opinions. They respected her opinions above their own, in fact." true however all the reformers and especially John Calvin' true Calvin did love the church he loved her so much that when he saw the utter cooruption and blasphemy of the roman church he knew because he loved her and Chrst and the true Gospel that it was necessary to restore the church to its uncorrupted form and renounce the corrruptions the papacy and Rome and her false teachings she placed on her. It is also why I left the roman catholic church and renounced her and her pope as did Calvin and all the reformers.

In grace,
Dudley

I have explained the confessions to evangelicals who have zero familiarity with them that they are exactly like a systematic theology book. Instead of commenting on a book or passage, they comment on one subject or topic at
a time, gathering scriptures together from many different books. That concept makes perfect sense to them.

I don't see them as just a lens to promote Calvinism versus Armininism or dispensationalism, I see them as a concise, handy, tool that was created to teach both adults and kids what the bible says on a topic, back in the days before everybody could buy their own concordance.

Reason and drawing out good and necessary consequences.