Posted on 07/11/2014 6:56:52 AM PDT by Gamecock
(Original title: "Well Done Phil"
“It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.” – C. H. Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1876), 1.
“Tradition is the fruit of the Spirit’s teaching activity from the ages as God’s people have sought understanding of Scripture. It is not infallible, but neither is it negligible, and we impoverish ourselves if we disregard it.” – J.I. Packer, “Upholding the Unity of Scripture Today,” JETS 25 (1982): 414
“Although tradition does not rule our interpretation, it does guide it. If upon reading a particular passage you have come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other Christian for two-thousand years, or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you had better abandon your interpretation.” – R. C. Sproul
“The best way to guard a true interpretation of Scripture, the Reformers insisted, was neither to naively embrace the infallibility of tradition, or the infallibility of the individual, but to recognize the communal interpretation of Scripture. The best way to ensure faithfulness to the text is to read it together, not only with the churches of our own time and place, but with the wider ‘communion of saints’ down through the age.” – Michael Horton, “What Still Keeps Us Apart?”
“Sola Scriptura” is not the same as “Solo Scriptura”. A proper understanding of “Sola Scriptura” will not lead to an individualistic, “me and my Bible in the woods” approach to Bible interpretation. Because of Christ’s gifts to the Church through the centuries, we have the privilege of standing on the shoulders of giants.
On this theme, I loved reading Phil Johnson’s response (some time back) to a questioner at his Pyromaniacs blog site who asked:
Your identity as a “Baptist”; your endless quotations from Charles Spurgeon; your faithful devotion to John MacArthur; and especially your willingness to call yourself a “Calvinist” are all huge red flags that tell me something is seriously wrong with your theology. Why do you teach a system of doctrine that is named after a mere man? Why are you following human teachers instead of going to the Bible alone? After all, 1 John 2:27 says, “The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you.” We ought to go to Scripture alone to establish our doctrine! The truth is in God’s Holy word, not in any theological system or theology textbook developed by mere men. Isn’t that principle what the Reformation was originally about? Sola Scriptura? Didn’t even Calvin himself go to Scripture for the truth instead of reading other men? I believe that if Calvin himself wrote for this blog, he would point people to the truth in God’s Holy word, not to a theology developed by some other man.
Phil’s reply: You have seriously misunderstood Sola Scriptura if you really imagine that it rules out human teachers or eliminates systematic theology. The Reformers (including Calvin) often cited the works of Augustine, Tertullian, Jerome, Cyprian, Ambrose, and others-ranging from the early church fathers through Aquinas. They didn’t follow any of them slavishly, of course, but they certainly took them seriously. Not one of the major Reformers would have tolerated the claim that because the Church Fathers were mere men they were therefore irrelevant or incapable of shedding any helpful light on tough theological questions.
Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone is the final court of appeal in all matters of faith and practice. It is an affirmation that “the whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” and that “nothing at any time is to be added [to the Bible], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” It recognizes that there is ultimately no higher spiritual authority than God’s Word, so “the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture . . . it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”
But none of that means we’re obliged to discard the wisdom of godly men from ages past and require each man to try to discern truth from scratch by reading nothing but Scripture by himself.
As for Calvin, he certainly did “point people to the truth in God’s Holy Word” – but one thing he did not do was steer people away from the important theologians of the past. In fact, Calvin’s works are filled with references to the Church Fathers – Augustine in particular. Calvin knew it was important to demonstrate that he was proposing nothing wholly novel and that his theology was in the doctrinal lineage of the greatest theologians of the church. He regarded himself as Augustinian, in precisely the same way many today think of themselves as “Calvinists.”
If Calvin wrote for this blog and someone responded to one of his posts by refusing to read what Augustine wrote, Calvin would probably write that person off as arrogant and unteachable.
Incidentally, 1 John 2:20, 27 is the apostle John’s response to an early outbreak of gnostic-flavored spiritual elitism. He was refuting some false teachers (he called them “antichrists”) who insisted that real truth is a deep secret, different from the apostolic message, into which people must be initiated by some anointed swami. The Holy Spirit indwells and anoints each believer, and He is the One who truly enlightens and enables us to understand truth. But He also gifts certain people with a particular ability to teach others (Romans 12:6-7; Ephesians 4:11). So while John was condemning the notion of enlightened masters in the style of Freemasonry and gnosticism, he was not making a blanket condemnation of teachers. He himself was a teacher.
Bonus (from Phil):
A follow-up message asks if I am suggesting it’s wrong for someone to abandon all books and human teachers and rely only on what he can glean from the Bible for himself. Answer: yes, I think that’s wrong because it’s arrogant and reflects a sinful kind of unteachability. This is my whole point: sola Scriptura doesn’t rule out the valid role of teaching in the church.
Furthermore, it is simply not the case that any common, unskilled, unschooled individual, sitting down with his Bible and no other tools, can expect to come to a full and mature understanding of Scripture without any help from godly teachers who understand some things better than he will ever get it on his own. Here’s Bernard Ramm’s famous response to the arrogance reflected in such a perversion of Sola Scriptura:
It is often asserted by devout people that they can know the Bible completely without helps. They preface their interpretations with a remark like this: “Dear friends, I have read no man’s book. I have consulted no man-made commentaries. I have gone right to the Bible to see what it had to say for itself.” This sounds very spiritual, and usually is seconded with “amens” from the audience.
But is this the pathway of wisdom? Does any man have either the right or the learning to by-pass all the godly learning of the church? We think not.
First, although the claim to by-pass mere human books and go right to the Bible itself sounds devout and spiritual it is a veiled egotism. It is a subtle affirmation that a man can adequately know the Bible apart from the untiring, godly, consecrated scholarship of men like [Athanasius,] Calvin, Bengel, Alford, Lange, Ellicott, or Moule…
Secondly, such a claim is the old confusion of the inspiration of the Spirit with the illumination of the Spirit. The function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture. Suppose we select a list of words from Isaiah and ask a man who claims he can by-pass the godly learning of Christian scholarship if he can out of his own soul or prayer give their meaning or significance: Tyre, Zidon, Chittim, Sihor, Moab, Mahershalalhashbas, Calno, Carchemish, Hamath, Aiath, Migron, Michmash, Geba, Anathoth, Laish, Nob, and Gallim. He will find the only light he can get on these words is from a commentary or a Bible dictionary. [from Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), pp. 17-18 (emphasis in original).]
1 Corinthians 3: 3-5
for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.…
And
1 Corinthians 1:11-13
For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?…
Thanks for posting a corrective response to the earlier straw man post.
Sadly, the other thread and ones like it are typically posted by those who are not learned enough in the Scriptures to realize the poor quality of what they post. Nor learned enough to feel the embarrassment of revealing how little they understand.
Good article, there are some frequenters of the religious forum that really need to read this, because they do not understand the term, but throw it around anyway.
Let presume the early church fathers (ECFs) have some influence on doctrines we have today.
But are we to accept the false teachings on Mary, indulgences and such the ECFs seem to advocate that contradict what the Bible has to say?
When do we take what the ECFs said and when do we discard what they said?
To me, this is where the contention starts.
Do you think correcting false statements about your views is creating strife?
I alone am responsible for my relationship with Christ. This doesn’t mean I read scripture and ignore what other men say. If I do that I become what I call an “intorverted” Christian. That is, I can come up with some sincerely loopy interpretations and without the sounding board of other believers, never find my path corrected. And the discussion between me and those others is good for all of us.
It doesn’t mean I hold them above me. I don’t. I see all of them, be it Calvin, Lewis or even the apostles, as my equals in discussing the good news and its meaning in my everyday life.
“When do we take what the ECFs said and when do we discard what they said?”
Simple. If the early Christians don’t contradict the Bible, and their doctrine is useful, then go ahead and use it. If they do contradict the Bible, then do not.
It is often asserted by devout people that they can know the Bible completely without helps. They preface their interpretations with a remark like this: “Dear friends, I have read no man’s book. I have consulted no man-made commentaries. I have gone right to the Bible to see what it had to say for itself.” This sounds very spiritual, and usually is seconded with “amens” from the audience.
At the time of Pauls conversion there was nothing except the holy spirit and mens words to learn by, and Paul said that he learned from the Holy spirit.
He was not about to go to those hypocrites who walked with Jesus for over 3 years.
Gal 1
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
But is this the pathway of wisdom? Does any man have either the right or the learning to by-pass all the godly learning of the church? We think not.>>>>>>
If Paul felt no need to go to the apostles who knew Jesus and learned from him first hand, who am I to listen to some one trying to sell a book or are preaching for hire?
No thanks, I will go to the scripture, I might have to have help in understanding them but that is a far different cry than depending on mans theory in place of scripture.
Do you think correcting false statements about your views is creating strife?
My post was regarding what the bible says about proclaiming to follow a particular man’s teaching to the point of labelling your beliefs after him. I agree with much of the teaching of C. S. Lewis, but would never consider calling myself a “Lewisian”. And I would never call myself a Baptist or Calvinist or Catholic. At the moment I am a Christian that attends a Baptist church. I used to attend AG and even foursquare. But I identify myself as a Christian.
Raven,
Against that is the revelation that God has gifted teachers to the church - and of course that Paul was caught up into the presence of the Glorified Christ and received the Gospel from Him.
Best,
aren’t you a Phil Johnson guy?
Well, do you have
Christmas lights?
Music in the service?
NO music the the service?
The common version of the Nicean creed used the West?
The version of the Nicean creed in the East?
The preexistence of the soul?
The Non preexistence of the Soul?
If you go the pre Nicean fathers, you get into a variety of posistions on the Incarnation.
So the question has never been “Why don’t you believe all that the ECF’s believe?” But “Why do you believe the portions of the ECF’s that you do?” I can use the Early Church Fathers to justify just about every doctrine disputed on Free Republic’s religion forum.
“Absolutely not. But then, it begs the question: How do we know they are false?”
Well, if they are your views, then you are the authority on what those views are and your judgement alone is sufficient to say someone is speaking falsely of them.
“My post was regarding what the bible says about proclaiming to follow a particular man’s teaching to the point of labelling your beliefs after him.”
Ah, I didn’t see that was what you were getting at.
All the wisdom and knowledge of men is interesting and somewhat enlightening. However, after a recent experience in a Bible exposition teaching church I have to question if so much of the ‘enlightened’ matters much to my walk with the Lord. I won’t go into detail but it bothers me when one side is arrogant and feels justified in calling those with different beliefs arrogant and rigid. We let things divide that we will only know for certain when we reach Heaven and maybe not then because they may not matter. “It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.” – C. H. Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1876), 1.- a great quote that applies equally to all.
Matthew 24
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
If every religion has a different claim then the only thing I can do is to see for myself what the scripture said.
For instance one religion may say that Jesus actually sweat blood, I went to scripture and found that it does not exactly say that at all.
I see no reason not to get help on understanding scripture but I am not going to put my life in the hands of some one unless what they say is word for word backed by scripture.
That's the main question to ask.
It's why I default back to the Bible when there is conflict, and there is, among the ECFs.
I can use the Early Church Fathers to justify just about every doctrine disputed on Free Republic’s religion forum.
“I see no reason not to get help on understanding scripture but I am not going to put my life in the hands of some one unless what they say is word for word backed by scripture.”
I largely agree.
Once in my first year of seminary, a fellow student asked the prof a question. The prof answered that if the student was a third year student, he would answer it, but since he was in his first year, he encouraged him to ask in the future. I share that because in my third year, I’d already reached a point in my understanding of how the scriptures fit together, that I didn’t need to ask.
In the interim, God provides teachers to keep us from error and help us climb the rungs. In the end, we still search the Scriptures to “see if these things are true.” Some things we must set aside for the time until later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.