Last thing on Scripture for a while

Here’s a good statement of the protestant position on Sola scriptura and it’s relation to the authority of the church. I’m going to quit talking about this for a while, because I’d like to stop and do some more reading about the topic before I say any more. In particular, I want to look at Keith Matheson’s book, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”. Reading the description of the book on amazon, I found somebody posted a great quote that I wish I had read two weeks ago:

“This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: ‘The Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation.’ And whoever twists the Holy Scripture so that it is understood according to his preconceived opinions does this to his own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). The best reader of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not bring the understanding of what is said to the Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.”

–Martin Chemnitz, “Examination of the Council of Trent” Vol. 1, p. 208.

7 Responses to Last thing on Scripture for a while

  1. mliccione says:

    Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

    This was, and perhaps remains, the main exegetical objection to Luther’s account of justification.

  2. mliccione says:

    Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

    That was, and perhaps remains, the main exegetical objection to Luther’s account of justification.

  3. scholasticus says:

    I agree.

    The new perspective on paul has pretty much thrashed the lutheran position on justification.

  4. robporwoll says:

    I pulled my copy out as well this morning. = ) I read this book several years ago, right before I got to Wheaton actually. I think you will find it helpful in clarifying the questions involved, and pointing out the use of the regula fidei.

  5. Shane, et al,

    I’m looking for the top 3 scholarly books that deal with Duns Scotus specifically, and the scholastic(?) idea of the “two powers” of God generally. Any recommendations?

    Thanks.

    Gerald

  6. scholasticus says:

    For a general introduction:

    Richard Cross, Duns Scotus, (Great Medieval Thinkers Series), 1999.

    There’s a nice section on God’s absolute and ordained powers and the significance of that debate in later medieval theology in Heiko Oberman, Harvest of Medieval Theology, pp. 30-56.

    Those are the only things that spring to mind. You could also root around on scholar.google.com and probably find something. In general look for things things by Richard Cross, Alan Wolter, Mary Ingham, Bonnie Kent and Thomas Williams. They don’t all agree about Scotus, but these are the major players.

  7. Thanks Shane. Appreciate the help.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: