True and False Humility When Handling the Scriptures

"Hermeneutics is a big word. You may be unfamiliar with it, but it’s a necessary part of all Bible study.  Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting what an author has written. For Christians, it means following the appropriate rules for interpreting Scripture. And although the word “hermeneutics” doesn’t appear in the Bible, its practice is clearly described: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

In that verse, the apostle Paul provides the what and why of hermeneutics—accurate handling of God’s sacred Word. Right interpretation of what God has spoken to us means that we can rightly apply it to our lives, and rightly proclaim it to others. “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33, KJV) and He doesn’t present us with a smorgasbord of doctrinal options. If God wrote it, then all that matters is what Hemeans by what He says, not what I think or want it to mean.

But today, in a culture dominated by subjectivity, an objective, authoritative truth has no place. That’s true even in the church, where, in the early days of the twenty-first century, postmodern theologians gained a significant voice. They called themselves the Emerging church, and argued, in effect, that certainty is overrated. Instead, they invented their own approach to hermeneutics.

Tony Jones, an early leader in the Emerging church, called it the “hermeneutic of humility.” The idea was to interpret God’s Word but stop short of coming to any definitive conclusions that would exclude alternative interpretations. It identified as “humble” what other eras of church history knew as confusion or unbelief.

Sola Scriptura: The Heart of the Reformation (and the True Christian Faith)

"Within a year of posting his Ninety-Five Theses, Martin Luther was summoned to appear before Cardinal Cajetan to be examined for his accusations against the Roman Catholic Church’s theology and practice. When the Cardinal pressed him on the issue of the church’s authority, Luther responded, “The truth of Scripture comes first. After that is accepted one may determine whether the words of men can be accepted as true.”[i] Now, Luther was not discrediting the words of men completely, rather, he was claiming that, far and above anything or anyone else, Holy Scripture was first and foremost. This led to the development of Sola Scriptura—“Scripture alone.” But in order to examine this principle within the context of the Reformation, we first need to explore the doctrine of Scripture itself. For the rest of this article, we will examine four foundational claims regarding the Word of God: its inspiration, inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency.

The Issue of Inspiration- The most dynamic and explicit passage in all of Scripture about the nature of the Bible’s own divine inspiration comes in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Apostle Paul writes:  “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

In the Greek, the word theopneustos is used to describe how Scripture came to be; it was literally “God-breathed”. It was as if the Lord took a deep breath in, and then exhaled Holy Scripture. Further, the means by which God brought Scripture about was through the pens of human writers—“men [who] spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers did not disagree about divine inspiration. What was and is still contested, however, is the content of the revelation.

Paul’s use of the word “all” in 2 Timothy 3:16 leads us to examine: What books of the Bible are contained in the “all” of Scripture? This is the question of the canon. The word “canon” comes from the Greek word kanōn, meaning “measuring rod”, which came to be used in speaking of a “rule” or “standard”. And in the most general sense, the canon is “the authoritative books that God gave his corporate church.”[ii] Historically, the accepted canon consists of 66 books—39 Old Testament books (Genesis to Malachi) and 27 New Testament books (Matthew to Revelation).

During the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church asserted that there were additional books inspired by God, which belonged in the canon. What came to be known as the Apocrypha consisted of the books of Tobit, Judith, the Additions to Esther, the Additions to Daniel, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also called Sirach), Baruch (Hebrew for Blessed), the Letter of Jeremiah, and 1st and 2nd Maccabees. In response to the Reformers’ claims that many of the Catholic Church’s practices were unbiblical, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) canonized the Apocrypha, thus deeming it to be the inspired and authoritative Word of God. But after 1,500 years of being absent from the canon, did the Apocrypha suddenly deserve to be included? Certainly not.

Sola Scriptura and the Role of Teachers in our Spiritual Growth

A less-than-admiring reader once wrote Pastor Phil Johnson the follow criticism.  Regardless of what seminary your pastor went to and what authors he consults the most this is a criticism educated church leaders/members hear with some regularity today; (hence this posts value to the larger church; note Eph. 4:11-16; Colossians 1:28-29; 2 Timothy 2:2).... Dear Phil, "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 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.'

Word-driven church leaders and members agree that 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 the Reformers go to Scripture for the truth instead of reading other men? I believe that if Luther 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."

Pastor Johnson's Reply: You have seriously misunderstood sola Sriptura if you really imagine that it rules out human teachers or eliminates systematic theology. The Protestant Reformers 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.

Scripture Alone vs. Church Traditions

"I (Pastor Phil Johnson) in Finland to speak to a group of Reforming church leaders on the subject of sola Scriptura. The conference here started tonight. I'll be covering topics like the authority, accuracy, and sufficiency of Scripture. I'll also be highlighting the dangers of vesting too much authority in ecclesiastical tradition—especially when our traditions might burden or obscure the simplicity of the gospel. Or worse yet, in some churches and denominations, long-treasured church traditions have often been used to adjust or nullify clear statements of Scripture (cf. Mark 7:13).

To be clear: I am not one of those who thinks we need to jettison every order of service, structure, or interpretation of Scripture that has some pedigree in church tradition. (I'm not an organoclast.) I would be the very last person to advocate ignorance of church history, show sneering contempt for the very idea of tradition, or recommend a haughty, overweening attitude toward godly churchmen and their beliefs and practices from past ages. Tradition has a legitimate place in the church; but that place is not near the top of the hierarchy.

Anyway, while I was at dinner with conference attendees tonight, a friend in America texted me a question about those very issues. He was asking if we could have an extended conversation when I get back in the office. I'm looking forward to that. Meanwhile, I thought his question so good and the issue so important that I decided to answer him briefly with a text message on the spot. My Finnish friends around the table were engaged in conversation with one another, so I thought I could dash off a quick reply without being impolite.

Wrong. My reply became a bit longer than planned, and by the time I finished thumb-typing, I was the only one left at the table. So with apologies to my Finnish hosts to whom I was unintentionally rude, here's my reply to my friend's question. My answer should give you sufficient clues to discern everything you need to know about the gist of what he asked. Here you go:

The Heart of the Reformation (500 Years Later)