“Modern Bible Versions, and Westcott and Hort”)
I. The NIV minimizes or omits references to the deity of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, and a host of other Bible teachings .
II. The NIV subtly changes the meaning of passages, opening the door to false teaching.
III. The "Method" of interpretation of Scripture utilized by the NIV is not Scriptural, nor in agreement with the Lutheran Confessions.
One reason (excuse?) often proffered by church leaders and lay people for using an inaccurate Bible translation, such as the NIV within a church body for worship and instruction is that using the KJV would be "the equivalent of putting an altogether different language in front of many of our people - they would not understand it.". This “explanation” for the blatant disregard for Scriptural accuracy is essentially without merit especially when the NIV is thoroughly examined.
Contrary to today’s conventional “wisdom”, the KJV IS, indeed, English. The real “difficulty” in using it, I maintain, lays not so much with the language used in the KJV text itself, but with the all too prevalent lukewarm attitude towards God’s Word (and perhaps some laziness?) on the part of (both?) shepherd and flock to do the work required in searching, (Acts 17:11; John 5:39) and expounding upon the Scriptures, so that they are effectively understood by lay people.
“Difficult” passages can (and ought), according to Scripture be explained and “made clear” by letting Scripture interpret Scripture, as God so commands thusly for our benefit. For “…no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2 Peter 2:20) This is what we orthodox Lutheran Christians mean and refer to when we declare the principle and battle-cry of the Reformation: “Sola Scriptura” – “Scripture Alone”. Scripture itself is to be the sole interpreter of Scripture. Proper “translation” of God’s Word from the Greek manuscripts does not mean man can set himself up as “judge” over God’s Holy Word, nor does it allow man to add or take away from the original meaning intended in the Majority Greek texts as the NIV inarguably does (as we shall demonstrate below).
Sincere Christians Will Not Use the NIV Translation For Anything Other than Comparison, Because:
I. The NIV minimizes or eliminates references to the deity of Jesus Christ.
(Proofs By Comparison of Bible passages in the KJV and NIV)
[This list does not include the many words and phrases that were completely deleted from the NIV--it deletes over 64,000 words including words like mercyseat, Jehovah, and Godhead. It removes meaningful, well-known Bible words like Calvary, Lucifer, new testament, regeneration, etc.]
Luke 23:42
KJV: “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.”
NIV: “Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.
Why is this problematic? Answer: The use of the word “Lord” in the KJV testifies to Jesus’ deity and is founded on the Greek word κύριος (kyrios- meaning “lord or master”; A title given to God.) The NIV eliminates this important witness and declaration of Christ’s deity, replacing it, simply using the name “Jesus” (Yeshua), a common name among the Jews of that time period. The name “Jesus” comes from the transliteration of ‘Yeshua’ into Greek and then English.) Archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of 71 Yeshuas from the period of Jesus' death. The name also appears 30 times in the Old Testament in reference to four separate characters—including a descendent of Aaron who helped to distribute offerings of grain (2 Chronicles 31:15) and a man who accompanied former captives of Nebuchadnezzar back to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:2).
Romans 14:10
KJV: “…for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”
NIV: “…For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.
Why is this problematic? Answer: The Textus Receptus uses “Χριστός (Christos) By removing the word “Χριστός” (Christos), the NIV removes the judgment of all mankind from the purview of Jesus Christ, arbitrarily dismissing an important article of faith.
1 Timothy 3:16
KJV: “…God was manifest in the flesh…”
NIV: “…He appeared in a body…”
Why is this problematic? Answer: The Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated uses “Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί” (God was manifest, or made known in the flesh).
In addition, it can be truthfully said that all sinful men “appear in a body” Thus, the NIV again does not honor Christ’s deity (sinlessness) in this translation. Neither does it lend itself to the deeper understanding of Christ taking on our humanity with all its implications vs. merely appearing “in a body”, as one might appear in a costume.
John 6:69:
KJV: “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”
NIV: “We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Why is this problematic? Answer: St. John says in chapter 20:31 that he wrote the Book of John “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” The Textus Receptus in the John 6:69 passage uses: “σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος” (Thou art “that Christ”(the annointed) the Son of the Living God). Furthermore, in light of John 20:31 where The Textus Receptus uses: Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς (Iēsous (Jesus) is the Christ, the Son of God) and the fact that in Matthew 16:16 (KJV), the Textus Receptus shows Peter’s testimony the same as it is in John 6:69: “Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος” (“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”), it seems highly unlikely Peter would use the NIV expression: “the Holy One of God” on another occasion. The NIV is here, once more “taking a shot” at Jesus’ deity. For, the created angels are themselves called “holy” in Matthew 25:31, but in contrast to Jesus, the angels are not “the Christ (the anointed one), the Son of the Living God” the fact John wants us to believe, as he so eloquently testifies is the whole purpose of his writing.
Luke 2:33
KJV: “And *Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.”
The KJV here properly indicates Joseph is not Jesus’ father.
NIV: “The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.”
Why is this Problematic? Answer: The NIV subtly implies Jesus has a human father (Joseph). If the NIV is accurate, and Jesus had a human father, then we have no Savior, we are still in our sins and eternally damned without hope.
Luke 2:43
KJV: “And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.”
Here again, the KJV correctly indicates Joseph is not Jesus’ father.
NIV: “After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.”
Why is this Problematic? Answer: Here the NIV plainly states that Jesus has a human father, a subtle denial of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Luke 2:48
KJV: “And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.”
Luke 2:49
KJV: “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?”
In verse 49, Jesus rightly gently rebukes his mother’s statement regarding Joseph in verse 48. Jesus makes it plain to her that Joseph is not his father by His answer: “wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?”
Why is this problematic? Answer: The NIV in Luke 2:33 and 43 attempts to completely rob Jesus Christ of His deity, by making the subtle statement in each passage that Jesus had a human father and mother. This should be unacceptable to any sincere Christian.
Mark 15:28
KJV: “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.”
This passage refers to the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12 and providing proof that Jesus Christ was, indeed, the Promised Savior.
NIV: Mark 15:28 is OMITTED COMPLETELY!!!
Only an easily missed footnote in small print indicates: “Some manuscripts left 28 and the scripture was fulfilled, which says, he was counted with the lawless ones.”
Why is this problematic? Answer: This is yet another subtle attempt to rob Jesus of His deity and the fact that He was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12. It is also a subtle attempt to rob the reader of Mark’s testimony to same.
Matthew 18:11
KJV: “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”
NIV: Matthew 18:11 is OMITTED COMPLETELY!!!
Only an easily missed footnote among a number of other footnotes in small print indicates: “Some manuscripts 10 heaven 11 The Son of Man came to save what was lost”
Matthew 24:36
KJV: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”
NIV: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.” A foot notes states: Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.
It is important to Note: The KJV shows Jesus referring to his father as “My Father”. This is correct, as The Father is, indeed, Jesus’ Father. The NIV subtly omits this clear witness to Jesus’ deity.
Matthew 27:54
KJV: “Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.”
NIV: “Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.”
Why is this problematic? Answer: The NIV includes a footnote which states: “54 Or a son.”, making a point in the footnote to use the lower case “s”, yet another subtle attempt to rob Jesus of his deity.
John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16 and 3:18
KJV: “only begotten Son”
NIV: John 1:14: “the one and only Son”
John 1:18: “the one and only Son”
John 3:16: “one and only Son”
John 3:18; “God’s one and only Son”
Why is this problematic? Answer: The NIV is absolutely incorrect in all 4 of these passages.
The NIV reduces Jesus Christ to the same status as all human believers in Christ, as 1 John 3:2 clearly states: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
John 4:42
KJV: “And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.”
NIV: “They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”
Why is this problematic? Answer: The NIV clearly states Jesus is a mere man, possibly no more the Christ, The Anointed One, than any other mere mortal in the course of human history who claimed to be the Messiah, the Savior of the world.
John 6:47
KJV: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”
NIV: “Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.”
Why is this problematic? Answer: The NIV removes Jesus from the picture. It omits the Truth that belief on Jesus Christ Alone is necessary for eternal life.
Belief ? Belief in what? Budda? Mohammed? Good Works?
John 4:3
KJV: “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”
NIV: “but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.”
Why is this problematic? Answer: The NIV does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh in this verse. Could it be the NIV is of the spirit of antichrist?
Hebrews 1:3
KJV: “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:”
NIV: “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”
Why is this problematic? Answer: The NIV omits “by himself” and “our sins”. These omissions weaken the text. [“purification for sins”? Who’s sins?]
Matthew 6:13
KJV: “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”
NIV: “And lead us not into temptation,[a] but deliver us from the evil one.[b]’
Why is this problematic? Answer: The NIV omits the passage, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” Instead, placing it in a footnote, as though it was only an afterthought: “Matthew 6:13 The Greek for temptation can also mean testing. Matthew 6:13 Or from evil; some late manuscripts one, / for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.” Based upon the Westcott and Hort Greek text, modern Greek translators choose to omit this ending to the Lord’s Prayer. This omission may well create doubt in the mind of the reader as to the trustworthiness of God’s Word, including Jesus’ own instructions to His disciples concerning prayer.
Ephesians 3:9
KJV: “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:”
NIV: “and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.”
Why is this problematic? Answer: Colossians 1:16-17 (KJV) has this to say of Jesus: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
The NIV translation of Ephesians 3:9 subtly attempts to rob Jesus Christ of the honor, glory, and awesome power as The Creator of heaven and earth and willfully deprives the reader of the testimony of God’s Word concerning the deity of Jesus.
In addition, based on the corrupted minority texts, Wescott and Hort made themselves judge over God’s Word creating a Greek translation in which the following 40 Scripture passages have been omitted. Pastors, professors and others who defend the use of the NIV in worship and bible instruction have, in effect, done the same thing.
Matthew 12:47 removed in the footnotes
Matthew 17:21 OMITTED COMPLETELY: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
Matthew 18:11 OMITTED COMPLETELY: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
Matthew 21:44 removed in the footnotes: “And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.”
Matthew 23:14 OMITTED COMPLETELY: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
Mark 7:16 OMITTED COMPLETELY: "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."
Mark 9:44 OMITTED COMPLETELY: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Mark 9:46 OMITTED COMPLETELY: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Mark 11:26 OMITTED COMPLETELY: "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." How is this teaching of Jesus on forgiveness not important or relevant to the gospel message?
Mark 15:28 OMITTED COMPLETELY: "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."
Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) -- There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Immediately beneath the line it states: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.)
Luke 17:36 OMITTED COMPLETELY: KJV: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
Luke 22:43 removed in the footnotes
Luke 22:44 removed in the footnotes
Luke 23:17 OMITTED COMPLETELY: KJV: “(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)"
John 5:4 OMITTED COMPLETELY: KJV: "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
John 7:53-8:11 is relegated to a footnote: “[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]
The KJV has these verses, John 7:53-8:11: “And every man went unto his own house. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
ARE THESE VERSES NOT "IMPORTANT"? THE EVENT RELATED INDEED WAS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO THE WOMAN, WHOM JESUS FORGAVE, WAS IT NOT???!!! (as it is to all sincere Christians!)
Acts 8:37 OMITTED COMPLETELY: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The NIV omits yet another witness to Jesus’ deity. Why?
Acts 15:34 OMITTED COMPLETELY: "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."
Acts 24:7 OMITTED COMPLETELY: "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"
Acts 28:29 OMITTED COMPLETELY: "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."
Romans 16:24 OMITTED COMPLETELY: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
I John 5:7 The NIV mutilates this passage. A vitally important phrase is OMITTED COMPLETELY In the NIV it says only: "For there are three that testify:"
The KJV says: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
This is one of the most important and greatest verses testifying of the Trinity. Why does the NIV leave it out...? Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that support inclusion of this verse in the Bible. The omission of this verse and each and every verse above should deeply offend every sincere Christian.
II. The NIV changes the meaning of passages, opening the door to false teaching.
Luke 2:14
KJV: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
NIV: ““Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
Why is this problematic? Answer: The NIV translation is a subtle attack upon the Doctrine of Objective Justification and Salvation by Grace Alone. With the acceptance of the NIV translation of this passage, the questions consequentially must come: Did God only come to reconcile “some” people to Himself on the Cross? (And) “What must I do to gain God’s favor? There must be some way I can “qualify” for God’s favor”
Titus 3:5-7
KJV: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
NIV: “he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might (emphasis mine) become heirs having the hope of eternal life.”
Why is this problematic? Answer: The use of the word “might” creates uncertainty where there should be none and the it once more leaves the impression that man can and must do something to complete the work of God in Christ.
The NIV omits over 40 verses of Holy Scripture and inserts some 300 footnotes. These omissions indeed “take away” from God’s Word.
The Lord God has a dire warning for anyone who so arrogantly omits His Word from the Scriptures:
Revelation 22:18, 19 states: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
And, Finally,
III. The "Method" of interpretation of Scripture utilized by the NIV is not Scriptural, and is not in agreement with the Lutheran Confessions.
* "The Distinctive Doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church that would, by God's grace and mercy alone, remain orthodox is such that concerning the interpretation 0f The Scriptures the orthodox Lutheran Church acknowledges the Scriptures alone as the one and only infallible source of divine and saving Knowledge. A test by which it becomes manifest, whether a church is in full earnest when declaring the Scriptures the only source of saving truth, will be found in the rules and principles which she lays down for the interpretation of the Scriptures. Of that church alone can it be said in the true and full sense of the term that it builds alone on ‘the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ and on nothing more, which in its practical explanation and application of the Scriptures allows no room whatever to any kind of human. authority. If a church in her written confession does, indeed, lay down the Scriptures as the sole source of doctrine, but in her explanation of the Scripture allows a judgment to man or the wisdom of man as to what the meaning of the words written is or ought to be, then her practice contradicts her profession and she in fact sets up another guide beside the Scripture. Here is a second point in which our Lutheran Church distinguishes herself from all other religious societies, of whatever name they may be. The Lutheran Church alone lays down and consistently carries into practice such principles of interpretation, by which the written word in deed and in truth remains our only light and guide in matters of religion. All others, in one way or other, admit another judge of doctrine beside, or above, the Scriptures. The Scriptures Must Interpret Themselves. Scripture must be explained by Scripture, or it is to be left unexplained. This is the fundamental principle of all Lutheran hermeneutics. In the article ‘of the Lord's Supper the Formula of Concord says: ‘There is no interpreter of the words of Jesus Christ, so faithful and able as Christ, the Lord, Himself, who best understands His own words, and His own sentiment and meaning, and is most wise and intelligent in explaining them.’ N.M. 2d ed. p. 670. And the preface to the Formula of Concord the confessors begin by saying: ‘We believe, teach, and confess, that the only rule and standard, according to which all doctrines and teachers alike ought to be tried and judged, are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments alone, and it is written, Ps. 119:105:‘Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.’ p. 551. The Scriptures being the standard by which all are to be judged, they themselves can be judged by no one. The divine Word must have a divine interpreter, and all interpretation based on the authority or wisdom of man must be rejected. The way of salvation is laid before us in the Scriptures in such clear, plain, simple terms that a child of ordinary capacity can easily find it, and though it must be conceded that not all passages are alike clear, yet our church holds that the more difficult are to be explained in no other way, than by the more lucid. Logical deductions from any particular passage are only then to be acknowledged divine truth, * when they are either contained in the words of that same passage or are established elsewhere in the Scriptures. The Bible is the spiritual light which God has placed in this world to enlighten our darkened understanding. Aside from the Bible all is spiritual darkness Hence it necessarily follows that the true hermeneutical rule can be none other than that which is laid down by David, when he says: ‘With Thee is the fountain of life: in Thy light shall we see light.’ Ps. 36: 9. The Scriptures give light, but they can not receive light. No man, be he ever so learned and ever so wise, can bring light to the Scriptures. They must enlighten themselves.* For a treatise on this subject see Lutheran Witness Vol I; p. 122. By this principle of interpretation our church distinguishes herself in the first place from the Romish sect. The Council of Trent says: ‘To restrain petulant spirits, it has been decreed, that, in matters of faith and morals which belong to the frame-work of Christian doctrine, no one leaning on his own prudence shall construe the Scriptures according to his own understanding of them, against the sense which the holy mother church has held and yet holds, because it is for the church to judge over the true sense and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures. Neither shall any dare interpret the Holy Scripture against the unanimous consent of the fathers.’ (Session IV, Decree 2, Canon 2.) Upon the whole this canon reads rather innocently, but examining closely we soon find that practically it does away with the Scriptures entirely. It declares that the Scriptures shall be explained agreeably to the consensus of the fathers. Now we Lutherans do by no means despise the writings of the ancients; Our Confessions rather commend their study. They say:‘ These remarks (on the public Confessions of the church) are not to be understood as if we wished to reject or banish other useful and sound writings, - such as commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, refutations of errors, or explanations of important articles. For these writings, in so far as they are conformed to the above mentioned compend or outline of sound doctrine, can be retained and read with advantage, as useful explanations and statements.’ N. M. 2d ed. p. 595.But while the Lutheran Church has always commended the study of the fathers, she at the same time emphatically repels as false and pernicious the principle, that the Scriptures must be explained agreeably to the writings of the fathers, because thereby those writings would be placed above the Scriptures. The standard by which a book is to be judged and explained is greater than that book itself. If the principle be acknowledged that the Constitution of the United States must be understood and explained in agreement with the comments of Lawyer Black, then are Black's comments made a higher authority than the Constitution itself. In the Preface to the Epitome our Confessions say: ‘Other writings of ancient and modern teachers, whatever their reputation maybe, shall not be held to be of equal authority with the Holy Scripture, but to be subordinate to it, and shall not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses respecting the manner in which such doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles was held in certain places, after the age of the Apostles. p. 551.The writing of the most famous theologians of all ages are to be judged by the Scriptures,and not the Scriptures by them.Further the canon quoted demands, that whosoever undertakes to explain the Scriptures must explain them in agreement with the teaching of ‘the holy mother church’. This ‘holy mother church’ is composed of the prelates and the priesthood with the pope at their head. The laymen do here not come into consideration, because they are prohibited even from reading the Bible. The pope, as the pretended head of the church, is counted the supreme interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. As the pope explains them so everyone must receive them under penalty of eternal damnation. The Romish doctrine is that the Scriptures are dark and must have an infallible interpreter. This infallible interpreter is the pope, who is the vicar of Christ on earth and has the Holy Ghost in the shrine of his heart,so that he cannot err in expounding the Scriptures. By this blasphemous arrogance the pope manifests himself as ‘that man of sin, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.’ 2 Thess 2: 2,4 (KJV). In vain do the Jesuits appeal to 2 Peter 1: 20, where the apostle says: ‘No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.’ They argue, that Peter would allow no one to explain the Scriptures after his own private understanding of them, and consequently Peter demanded that they must be explained by the public teaching of the church. But this argument is false because Peter does here not contrast ‘private’ with ‘public,’ but‘private’ I with ‘divine;’ for he continues: ‘For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.’ The Scriptures did not proceed from man's own will and hence are not subject to man's own interpretation, but the Holy Ghost, the author of the Scriptures, must also be their supreme and authentic interpreter. A private interpretation is that which is taken from man's wisdom and intellect, and a divine interpretation is that which the Holy Ghost 'sown words give. Explaining Scripture by Scripture is the divine interpretation. Hence it is a private interpretation, as the term is here used, when the pope explains the Bible after his own liking, although this be done in ever so public a manner.If we are not willing to have that ‘man of sin’ on the Tiber to interpret the Scriptures for us, we must also not allow our own reason to explain them after its own dictates or principle. That according to Lutheran theology man's reason is in no way to be granted a voice in the interpretation of the Scriptures, is clearly expressed at many places in the Confessions. In the words of the Lord's testament they say: ‘We are under obligation not to interpret these words of this eternal, true and almighty Son of God, our Lord, our Creator and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, as figurative, tropical, or strange expressions, and explain them so that they may appear Conformable to our reason; but rather to receive these words as they read, in their proper and clear sense, with simple faith and due obedient and we should not permit ourselves to be turned aside from them by any objections or human contradictions, derived from the reason of man, however agreeable they may appear to our reason’ p. 669 The text itself, the connection, the wording, the grammar must decide or determine the meaning, and we must never allow our reason to argue: This cannot be so, therefore the words must be understood different from what they say. So the Calvinistic theologians argued with regard to the Lord's Supper and other articles of doctrine: A true human body could not be present at many different places at the same time, neither could it be received with the mouth; therefore the words of institution must be understood figuratively. In unmistakable language does John Calvin write: ‘The bread is called the body in a sacramental sense. Whence it follows, that the words of Christ are not subject to any common rule, and ought not to be examined on the principles of grammar.’ (See Institutes Book IV, Chap. XVII, § 20.) Because the Swiss theologians, in the controversy on the Lord's Supper, allowed their reason to meddle with the interpretation of the words of institution, therefore we can now so frequently hear Calvinistic sectarians say: Common sense would teach you better, than to understand the Scripture in that way. If reason is allowed to interpret the Scripture according to its own principles even in one article of doctrine onlv, then it has its entering wedge, and it will finally lead to the grossest rationalism or even outright infidelity. And when, to justify sectarianism, it is argued, that of two perfectly honest men the one would understand the same Scripture passage in one, the other in another way, we reply: We are not to go by our understanding, neither are we to construe the Scripture as we think it right, but we must abide in that meaning which the words in their own natural and grammatical construction exhibit, as the Lord says: ‘If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’ John 8: 31, 32, Finally the true Lutheran Church can never consent to fanatics and enthusiast, who would explain the Scriptures according to immediate revelations which they pretend to have received, or an inner light which they claim to possess. Virtually all such fanatics stand on the same ground with the pope, when he claims the right to interpret the Scriptures, because he has the Holy Ghost in the shrine of his heart. But St. John warns us writing: ‘Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1"
* "The Distinctive Doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church"
The Lutheran Watchman © 9/22/2014