Calvin Synod Herald, 2006 (107. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

2006-03-01 / 3-4. szám

CALVIN SYNOD HERALD

9

The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter 2

Of Interpreting the Holy Scriptures; and of Fathers, Councils, and Traditions

The True Interpretation of Scripture. [l]The apostle Peter has said that the Holy Scriptures are not of private interpretation (II Peter 1:20), and thus we do not allow all possible interpretations. Nor consequently do we acknowledge as the true or genuine interpretation of the Scriptures what is called the conception of the Roman Church, that is, what the defenders of the Roman Church plainly maintain should be thrust upon all for acceptance. But we hold that interpretation of the Scripture to be orthodox and genuine which is gleaned from the Scriptures themselves (from the nature of the language in which they were written, likewise according to the circumstances in which they were set down, and expounded in the light of like and unlike passages and of many and clearer passages) and which agree with the rule of faith and love, and contributes much to the glory of God and man’s salvation.

The only context for properly interpreting Scripture is the whole of the Bible. Perhaps we see a bit of Luther’s statement that the Aperspicuity or Scripture is Scripture peeking out at us in this paragraph. This is a concept that the Reformed church has always embraced. However we have seen the church in different ages give more or less weight to one method or element of proper interpretation whereas Buliinger quite correctly here includes first the primacy of the Scriptures alone, but does give due consideration to the time and culture of the first readers. Likewise though he uses different words we see the appeal is not to translations, but the original languages. Buliinger boldly states that the interpretation of Rome is not acceptable. He does not go into detail and prove this statement. He does not have to do so, proper interpretation leads to the same conclusion.

What do we mean when we say the only proper context is the whole Bible? First as shown here, Scripture must be used as the first tool to interpret Scripture. Second, less clear verses are most often explained by parallel passages elsewhere that are clearer. Third, as we develop a complete theology constant attention must be paid to the conclusions already reached. That is, do not poke holes in the opposite side of the balloon as you work on the side before you. When you shift understanding in one place most often there is a ripple effect that requires adjustment of the whole structure. An example of this is provided in the Bible where in Matthew 13:1-9 Christ tells the parable of the sower. The text then shifts to the explanation of why Christ taught in parables. Yet if a person keeps reading they will discover in Matthew 13:18-23 that the whole parable is presented again and explained. Often the explanation or clearer passage may be much farther apart as an Old Testament passage being explained in the New Testament. Nonetheless all essential doctrines and most others can be sufficiently understood by the light of Scripture alone.

Interpretations of the Holy Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.

We discussed this in chapter one concerning the preached Word and the officers and congregations testing what the preacher has said against the Bible and accepted creeds of the church. Their proximity to the original manuscripts and apostles did not insure the church fathers were without error. Note that constantly the appeal is to the Bible, as the Word of God, and thus the only authority to handle such disputes. Giving more weight to man, his works, or documents because of age is a great danger. Not to get into a debate about translation and Bible versions here, but the statement that certain versions were translated from the oldest and best manuscripts is a deliberate use of this false method of insuring the truth concerning all things. The fact that a document is the oldest does not also mean it is the best, as the publishers of Bibles would have us believe in using this phraseology. For this reason the Reformed churches have always demanded their clergy have some understanding of the original languages. While modem tools and computers have lessened the need for a Hebrew or Greek scholar on every comer, the fact is all clergy and for that matter sincere layman should have some knowledge and be proficient in the use of original language tools to insure the truth is held closely in the church. Also notice that this Confession is consistent and only in due humility calls to question that where the fathers deviated from the Scripture. When one called by God speaks in accord with the Bible, those words of explanation are as if God has spoken. Such words are not new revelation, nor to be added to the canon (Bible) but take on the authoritative nature of being from God. Only where the spoken word is in total conformity with the Bible, and from one called by God just for this purpose, does it have this authority. [2]

Councils. And in the same order also we place the decrees and canons of councils. Wherefore we do not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion or matters of faith, to urge our case with only the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much less by received customs, or by the large number who share the same opinion, or by the prescription of a long time. Who is the judge? Therefore, we do not admit any other judge than God himself, who proclaims by the Holy Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to be followed, or what to be avoided. So we do assent to the judgments of spiritual men, which are drawn from the Word of God. Certainly Jeremiah and other prophets vehemently condemned the assemblies of priests, which were set up against the law of God; and diligently admonished us that we should not listen to the fathers, or tread in their path who, walking in their own inventions, swerved from the law of God.