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).]
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.
We know Christ die for our sins.. but who wanted his death and why?..answers that to reveal the truth of being a protestant to a central religious authority claiming all power
I don’t know who Phil is.
I know, instead, who Jesus Christ is!
That advice alone would save many a soul from false religion
“Because of Christ’s gifts to the Church through the centuries, we have the privilege of standing on the shoulders of giants”
Thank you for recognizing the contributions of Catholic scholars to the Catholic Church. I knew you would finally post something I agree with.
This is a great post, thank you! And a good discussion as well. I am reminded of the statement by Francis Schaffer about the Church being below the line of despair. Indeed we all see through a glass darkly at this point. Hopefully, we can learn from each other for profit as we seek to follow our Lord and confront a lost world.
Pretty funny to say this view won’t lead to “me and my Bible in the woods. “. How many Christian non-Catholic denominations are there?? It has Led to exactly that.
Depends on the situation.
For instance, the specifics of the Incarnation are not spelled out in exacting detail. However, Creation is rather explicit.
Same with the Real Presence. Pretty clear (the anti real presence position is based on reason, just like the anti Creation position).
Music at service? Well, no that isn’t spelled out. Various liturgical arrangements? Same thing. Dietary restrictions? Pretty far open.
My point is that when people starting saying “The ECF’s said X!” I can find a situation where an orthodox church father often said Y.
There is conformity on many issues that runs right through both. For instance, people who claim that the Bible/ECF’s support sexual sin are not reading either.
My bride is Catholic.
The range in belief between Catholic diocese’s is amazing. To the point if you didn’t see the name on the door (or hidden away in some cases) you wouldn’t know the church is in communion with the one across the river.
From saying Jesus didn’t “Know he was God till the Resurrection” (preached the Sunday after Christmas no less) to full on smells and bells Latin mass.
The former is not the same religion as the later. Yet they both claim to be in communion with each other.
Bookmark
Depends on the situation.>>>>>
I agree.
**The range in belief between Catholic diocese’s is amazing.**
Thanks for saying this. I have been making that assertion for years. And if you want a real inconsistent belief go to a 3rd world country and compare it to suburban American Catholicism.
How many Catholic denominations are there?
Hundreds?
If it agrees with scripture and what the apostles taught we take it but if it disagrees with scripture or the apostles didn’t teach it then we discard it completely.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
Please show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary or veneration of her.
“Pretty funny to say this view won’t lead to “me and my Bible in the woods. “. How many Christian non-Catholic denominations are there?? It has Led to exactly that.”
A tiny sliver of the number of Romans who reject the teaching of Rome... and live by their own theology.
And every one of them are supposed to be following the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The parishes that are not should be called on the carpet, told to repent, or become protestant, where they allow such nonsense. You will still not see in any Catholic Church.
1. Women clergy.
2. Openly homosexual men preaching the word of God.
3. Abortion allowed.
4. Homosexual “marriages” performed.
These things are allowed all over the world of protestantism, why? Because there is no control. No one in charge. Every man for himself.
Once again you are deeply mistaken.
Sola scripture does NOT mean:
Don’t go to church.
Ignore pastors.
Don’t touch a Bible commentary.
Don’t look at the underlying Greek or Hebrew.
Be a Solo Christian.
It does mean that each of us, as individuals, will stand before God for judgment, either for our rejecting Him, or to reveal the quality of work we did under Him. It means we each have an individual responsibility to seek God, and what better guide that the Word He breathed out? It means commentaries and theologians and pastors and traditions are evaluated against the gold standard of God’s Word - God’s written revelation to man.
Scripture rules tradition. Tradition does not rule Scripture. If someone does not want commoners to read the Word in their common tongue, it speaks volumes about their intent. And if someone doesn’t WANT to compare doctrines taught to the Word of God, it speaks volumes about the individual!
Please tell me where I am wrong. Want me to give you a listing of protestant churches that allow the things I mentioned above. I can certainly do it.
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.