It may come as a surprise that the notion of the internal clarity of scripture arises only at the end of a treatment claiming to be a Prologomena to a Robust Lutheran Theology. Should it not be placed at the beginning? Should we not start with a statement of the general reliability of Scripture in terms of a special revelation, and then proceed to a consideration of the divine and its relationship to us? Should be not begin in time-honored fashion with what we can know, and then move forward to being, to what there is?
However, leaving consideration of the internal clarity of scripture to the end was done purposefully, because we are interested primarily in understanding this doctrine ontologically and not epistemically; we are interested in the being of the doctrine of the internal clarity of scripture, and not primarily in an epistemological method by which we are putatively given reliable means on the basis of which we can be confident in the truth of Scripture.
My interest with retrieving the notion of the internal clarity of Scripture is three-fold: 1) The doctrine is crucial for Lutheran theology because it protects against willful and capricious interpretations of Scripture, 2) It is a doctrine that all Lutherans should be able in principle to affirm, 3) It is a notion that, properly understood, creates parallels between understanding God's action and presence with respect to both the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture. I wish to treat this last point briefly.
Just as it may be externally obscure to us that God is at work in the universe, and yet Lutherans may affirm that God is at work in nature, so may it be externally obscure to us that God is at work creating and sustaing his Word within cannonical Scripture, and yet God is clearly Triunely present in His Holy Scriptures. The Triune God is present in His world even though humans often do not see it. One might say even that there is an internal clarity to God's work in nature. God is ontologically present at the center of Nature although humans often have trouble discerning it to be so. Correspondingly, Christ is present at the center of Scripture although humans have trouble oftentimes seeing this to be true.
What is important here is to understand God in His Trinitarian nature. Just as it is true that God creates and sustains the universe, incarnates Himself in the world, and bears testimony to that incarnation and the identity of God as Creator Father, Incarnate Word, and Loving Spirit, so too is it true that God the Son is present as Word in and through the Biblical text attesting to the Father, and attested to by the Spirit. Just as the Trinitarian God stands over and against Himself in Word and Spirit in nature, so too does the same Trinitarian God stand over and against Himself in witness to the Word in and through the text.
Thank Dennis, I needed to read this for my "edification" before my son finishes his question about "the breath of life," in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the internal/external "clarity" of Scripture...
In his debate with Erasmus, Luther of course addresses this topic because t is at the heart of their debate about free choice.
And, for his part, Luther is not only interested in what “Scripture says but how Scripture functions in the argument over free choice.”
For Luther, how Scripture functions to clarify itself is finally a matter of conscience. Luther wants to know how the Word of God gets preached in such a way that something is done to comfort and settle terrified consciences? The result was that, as Forde observed, “Erasmus set out to win a debate. Luther sought to comfort and rescue the lost.”
Luther sought to express the clarity of Scripture by naming what the Word of God 'does' to hearers.
Luther writes: “To put it briefly, there are two kinds of clarity in Scripture, just as there are also two kinds of obscurity: one external and pertaining to the ministry of the Word, the other located in the understanding of the heart. If you speak of the internal clarity, no man perceives one iota of what is in Scriptures unless he has the Spirit of God. All men have a darkened heart, so that even if they can recite everything in Scripture, and know how to quote it, yet they apprehend and truly understand nothing of it. They neither believe in God, nor that they themselves are creatures of God, nor anything else… For the Spirit is required for the understanding of Scripture, both as a whole and in any part of it. If, on the other hand, you speak of the external clarity, nothing at all is left obscure or ambiguous, but everything there is in the Scriptures has been brought out by the Word into the most definite light, and published to all the world.”
In this way of working Luther concluded that Erasmus’ “moderate skeptical theology” was “wide of the mark,” and whose words were, “Christ-less, Spirit-less words chillier than very ice.”
Luther is not speaking of the clarity and understanding of Scripture as something that is comprehensible to human reason.
Rather, as Hans Iwand wrote, Luther’s assertion,
“drives reason to its own limit, a limit which is not to be the abyss but God’s incomprehensible wisdom…”
And, thus, the bondage of the will, “is no longer to be addressed as reasonable; neither is it to be judged by human reason nor, for that matter, is it to be called unreasonable. For the fact that it (the bondage of the will) is repugnant to human reason does not mean it could be made sensible by necessity.”
The belief in a little bit of free choice, derived from human reason and not the Scripture, is a necessary assumption for the Old Adam. But such an opinion is not faith created by the Holy Spirit. It is first a rebellion against God’s word and second, faith in oneself apart from Christ.
Instead of interpreting the biblical text like Erasmus, collecting passages and authorities in defense of free will, Luther addresses the function of Scripture - something Lutherans have since all but abandoned!
Donavon,
ReplyDeleteYes. You have it exactly. I love this Luther quote, and the quotes of all the theologians of Lutheran Orthodoxy who clearly understand that this internal clarity presupposes a Trinitarian structure. The Holy Spirit, carried on the wings of the Word of Scripture interprets Scripture clearly. God is clear unto Himself. We are allowed access to this internal clarity, but "only through a glass darkly." Theologians like Pierre d' Ailly could speak of "an elevation of standpoint" that eschatologically preadumbrates the beatific vision granted after life.
Again, the problem is that we Lutherans have run to Luther's "conscience" as a pre-Enlightenment notion, instead of understanding it in its Trinitarian context. It is always difficult to unlearn old habits.
I love your blog, Donavon.
Dennis--
ReplyDeleteI think I followed you all the way to this statement:
"Just as the Trinitarian God stands over and against Himself in Word and Spirit in nature, so too does the same Trinitarian God stand over and against Himself in witness to the Word in and through the text."
What is the content of this "over and against?" How does this connect with God's "hiddenness" or self-revelation? Would this have any thing in common with what Steve Paulson names as God being "vulnerable" in His Word?
Thanks for all this writing!
Tim
Tim,
ReplyDeleteYou have asked what the content of the "over and against" is in the following: "Just as the Trinitarian God stands over and against Himself in Word and Spirit in nature, so too does the same Trinitarian God stand over and against Himself in witness to the Word in and through the text."
You futher ask how this connects with God's "hiddenness" or self-revelation? Then you ask if this would have any thing in common with what Steve Paulson names as God being "vulnerable" in His Word?
I am, of course, trying to think this through from a Trinitarian perspective. God is the movement of the Father relating Himself to Word and Spirit. This inner-Trinitarian dynamic is what it is for God to be God. The arena of God's self-disclosure as Word and Spirit includes nature. When reflecting upon the ontology of the perspicuity of Scripture, one finds another arena, the arena of Scripture where God is Triunely at work in the Word being attested to by Spirit. The process of writing Scripture, considered as a natural process, is a place where Word and Spirit are present. Just as God is providentially at work in creation as Word and Spirit, so is God at work in scripture also as Wordand Spirit.
God is truly hidden in the world because we can reasonably presuppose the causal closure of the physical when investigating it. In the same way, God is truly hidden in his Scriptures because we can reasonably presuppose a contextual approach which understands the texts merely within their synchronic and diachronic contexts.
The question of 'vulnerability' is an interesting one. If God is truly vulnerable, then we must affirm deipassionism, a problem for orthodox theology. If God is vulnerable not in se, but only in so far as he appears in the Word, then we either make the divine nature of the Word different from that of the Father, or we assign a nonstandard use to 'vulnerable'. This being said, I would be able to affirm vulnerability that does not entaildeipassionism.