LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 226

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

226

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Is. 55:10–11)

(Rom. 10:14–15). In his discussion of the principle of scriptural clarity in the
Lutheran confessions, Ralph Bohlmann writes:
We note that all articles of faith, the sacraments, and Old Testament sacrifices are included within the compass of Biblical
clarity. Moreover, the clarity of Scripture is clearly related to
Biblical language. It is therefore not in keeping with the confessional understanding of the clarity of Scripture to limit it
primarily to those passages “which display the teaching of justification by grace through faith in all its force and glory.”307

And toward the end of John’s Gospel, we are clearly told its primary
purpose:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples,
which are not written in this book; but these are written so that
you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30–31)
As Christians, we can know with certainty that God has revealed His
plan of salvation to us, and more generally, that even if we struggle with some
difficult passages here and there, we can be confident that “All Scripture is
breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete,
equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). This passage tells us that the
Scriptures are sufficiently clear for effective instruction in all areas of the Christian life and teaching. If this were not so, the Church would be unable to carry
out the Great Commission of making “disciples of all nations” and “teaching
them to observe all” that Jesus commanded (Matt. 28:19–20, emphasis added).
The Bible is clear about those doctrines essential to salvation and Christian living. This means that if there is a text that expresses a doctrinal truth in
a way that is less than clear to us, we can be sure that it is also expressed more
clearly in some other passage of Scripture. And since Scripture interprets
Scripture, we can and should consult these clearer passages to aid in illuminating the meaning of those that are less clear.
It must again be stressed that clarity in “doctrine and life” or “salvation
and Christian living” should not be misunderstood as meaning that the Bible
clearly teaches only spiritual or moral truths. Scripture clearly reveals truths
about God’s world and the history of His saving work that are “historical”
and “scientific” even when they tell about what God did in extraordinary
and miraculous ways.306 In His Word the Triune God reveals Himself to be a
God who is fully involved with creation—both in its initial perfection and in
its fallen present state. His work of redemption involves His being flesh and
blood and His mysterious work of spiritual renewal involves vocal chords,
sound waves, and dirty feet that carry a preacher from one place to the next

We can also be certain that the power of Scripture is not limited by what
we find easy to understand. We know that the efficacy of Baptism comes
from God’s Word, even though the infant does not understand that Word.
The power of the Word does not depend on our ability to respond, as if the
Word was inert and our minds were the determining factor. Rather, the Word
of God is alive and active (Heb. 4:12). It was through the Word of God that
the universe was created (Ps. 33:6; Heb. 11:3), and it is through the Word
that those dead in sin are brought to new life in Christ (1 Pet. 1:23). It is also
through the Word that the Holy Spirit seeks to bring us to the inner clarity of
faith that accepts such clear truths even when our minds cannot fully comprehend them.308
Still, there are areas of uncertainty. God has not revealed everything to
us in His Word (Eccl. 3:11; 1 Cor. 13:9–12; John 21:25). Furthermore, we have
seen that there are passages the exact meaning of which is a matter of ongoing
scholarly debate. It is particularly unwise to attempt to “prove” or “disprove”
the veracity of Scripture by importing modern, scientific meanings—which
are foreign to the text—into the interpretation of Scripture passages. This
amounts to a rejection of sola scriptura: assumptions outside the Bible are used
magisterially to support or reject its content.
A wiser course is to admit that in some cases we do not know the best
interpretation of a passage. In other cases, the sense of a passage may be clear,
but there is no clear way of integrating a claim of Scripture with the claims of
307

Principles of Biblical Interpretation, 59.

306
The terms “historical” and “scientific” are employed here to indicate factuality. Thus,
an event, such as the Exodus from Egypt, must be understood as historically factual because
Scripture speaks clearly about its occurrence. So also, an event, such as the raising of Lazarus
must be understood as factual in that a scientifically minded physician could have observed
and documented first the fact of Lazarus’s death and then of his return to life.

308
So Luther distinguishes the inner clarity of faith and the external clarity of Scripture’s
words. The unbeliever understands the clear assertion of Scripture that God created the heavens and the earth, but rejects it as false because the inner clarity that comes through faith in
God is lacking. Pieper quotes Luther as follows: “‘If you speak of the inner clearness, no man
sees one iota in the Scriptures but he that hath the Spirit of God. All have a darkened heart, so
that, even if they know how to speak of, and set forth, all things in the Scripture, yet they cannot feel them or know them; nor do they believe that they are the creatures of God or anything
else, according to Psalms 14:1: “The fool hath said in his heart, God is nothing.” For the Spirit
is required to understand the whole of the Scripture and every part of it. If you speak of the
external clearness, nothing whatever is left obscure or ambiguous; but all things that are in the
Scriptures are by the Word brought forth into the clearest light and proclaimed to the whole
world.’” Pieper, 325. The Luther quotation is from the St. Louis edition, XVIII:1683f. See also
Bohlmann, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, 59–63.

121

122

modern science. In such situations, we must simply do our best to offer an
interpretation of the passage or an explanation of the tension between a scriptural claim and the claims of science, acknowledging that such interpretations
and explanations are tentative, yet always showing the extent to which they
are grounded in the text itself, which is reliable.

tainty are no threat to one who knows “the love of Christ that surpasses all
knowledge” and so is “filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:19).

In this, Luther’s treatment of certain passages can serve as a helpful
model of interpretive and intellectual humility paired with a confidence in
Christ which sets His Word above human reason. The following extended
citation from John Maxfield’s book, Luther’s Lectures on Genesis and the Formation of Evangelical Identity, summarizes this point well:

In this chapter, we have attempted to situate the discussion about the
proper way to understand the claims of Scripture and science by considering
the nature of sound biblical exegesis and its implication for scriptural texts of
scientific import. We have emphasized the vital importance of defending the
inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture, and we have argued that
Scripture is clear in all of its teachings concerning salvation and the Christian life, even if the exact meaning of certain specific texts may be a matter
of scholarly dispute. We have discouraged any attempt to use science as a
normative standard to either support or correct Scripture. Scripture alone is
the ultimate source and norm for all teaching, and the proper role of science,
as of reason in general, is to serve as a minister to the faith. It may help us
to apply scriptural teaching and, in some cases, it may help us understand
what Scripture is saying, but it should never simply be read into the Bible
anachronistically. Rather we must follow the often arduous path of humbling
ourselves to the original intended meaning of the text. This is where we meet
the Christ about whom all the Scriptures testify, and this is where we find our
life and salvation.

In practice, Luther’s belief that the Holy Spirit had spoken in
the text of scripture as recorded by Moses led him to reject any
stepping away from the text as written, even when it involved
contradicting the witness of the church fathers or of reason. For
example, when Luther rejected patristic allegorical or figurative interpretations regarding the days of creation in Genesis
1, he concluded his argument by stating, ‘If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the
magisterium to the Holy Spirit.’ [AE 1:5] Likewise on the issue
of the cosmology espoused by the opening chapters of Genesis: ‘Moses says with clear words that the waters are above and
below the firmament. For this reason I take captive here my
understanding and agree with the word even if I do not comprehend it.’ [AE 1:26]

5. Conclusion

Luther’s adherence to the clear words of Moses in the text of
Genesis is reflected also in what appears to be a most banal
genealogical table, namely, the genealogy at the end of chapter
10. The professor told his students that this chapter should be
esteemed as ‘a mirror in which is seen what we human beings
are, namely, creatures so deformed by sin that we do not know
our own origin—no, not even God himself, our maker—unless
the word of God reveals these (as it were) glimmers of divine
light to us from afar.’ [AE 2:208–209]309
Indeed, we should not expect a final synthesis of the ultimate and the
penultimate. Efforts in that direction tend either to absolutize the relative
(giving a preferred scientific theory the status of Scripture) or to relativize
the absolute (reducing Scripture to the level of one among many competing
“theories”). It is far more honest and faithful to both the goals and purposes of
Scripture and science to accept that we must sometimes live with unresolved
tensions, knowing that ultimately our confidence and hope lie not in our
perfect knowledge but in Christ. Such areas of tension and temporary uncer309
Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 80 (Kirksville, Missouri: Truman State University Press,
2008), 34.

123

2016 Convention Workbook

124