# Essay on Private Interpretation



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2006)

Anybody know where I can go to find a good essay or article on the Reformed notion of private interpretation?


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 3, 2006)

_Fathers, Instruct Your Children: The Need To Recover the Practise of Catechism_ by Kim Riddlebarger

I know of nothing directly related off-hand, but only incidental to that issue.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2006)

Yeah I saw that one too.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 3, 2006)

The Illumination of the Holy Spirit & Theological Traditionalism by C. Matthew McMahon


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 3, 2006)

A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura by Keith Mathison

[Edited on 6-3-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2006)

Thanks Andrew. That first author is an old-time radio announcer. I didn't realize he also wrote on theological topics.

I'll have to read the Mathison work more closely as I've only had time to skim it but I was a bit surprised at his conclusion:


> Proponents of solo scriptura have deceived themselves into thinking that they honor the unique authority of Scripture. But unfortunately, by divorcing the Spirit-inspired Word of God from the Spirit-indwelt people of God, they have made it into a plaything and the source of endless speculation. If a proponent of solo scriptura is honest, he recognizes that it is not the infallible Scripture to which he ultimately appeals. His appeal is always to his on fallible interpretation of that Scripture. With solo scriptura it cannot be any other way, and this necessary relativistic autonomy is the fatal flaw of solo scriptura that proves it to be an unChristian tradition of men.


I never understood the Reformers to understand _Sola Scriptura_ as a "Me and the Bible" doctrine as is understood today by many. I thought they, rather, saw _Sola Scriptura_ as the sole authority for disputation in doctrinal matters as opposed to a dual view of tradition. It seems Mathison is criticizing misunderstandings of the concept rather than how it was originally understood.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 3, 2006)

Rich,
In the quoted section, Mathison is critiquing SOLO scriptura not SOLA scriptura.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 3, 2006)

KM is critiquing a position he disagrees with, but it is a bit confusing, since he created a "new name" for the position he disagrees with. No one I'm aware of prior to KM ever called an extreme "sola Scriptura" position "SOLO Scrip." And certainly most of those who accept the mainly subjective notion would reject the idea that they are diverging from what is basically the Reformation principle.

I understand why KM wrote as he did, but he "created" defined categories by so doing. The "single letter difference" is itself an indication of the closeness (in principle) between truth and error on this dividing line.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> Rich,
> In the quoted section, Mathison is critiquing SOLO scriptura not SOLA scriptura.


Roger that Hermonta. I had time to read Matt's article this AM. I was really tired when I skimmed it last night and then this morning realized he was critiquing a "Bible and Me" paradigm.


----------



## Scott (Jun 6, 2006)

"KM is critiquing a position he disagrees with, but it is a bit confusing, since he created a "new name" for the position he disagrees with."

Yeah, but it tracks with what heiko Oberman calls "Tradition 0," which is in contrast to "Tradition 1" and "Tradiition 2."


----------



## Theogenes (Jun 6, 2006)

I'm glad that Luther had not read Mathison's essay or book before making his stand at the Diet of Worms!
Jim


----------



## Theogenes (Jun 6, 2006)

Check out Charles Hodge on private interpretation...
http://www.dabar.org/Theology/Hodge/HodgeV1/Int_C06.htm

Jim


----------



## Scott (Jun 6, 2006)

> I'm glad that Luther had not read Mathison's essay or book before making his stand at the Diet of Worms!


Are you familiar with Luther's advice to civil magistrates about how to treat anabaptists following their private interpretations of scripture, or his views about how the Germanic churches should enforce Lutheran confessional orthodoxy against the private interpretations of dissenters?


----------



## Scott (Jun 8, 2006)

This is not an article, but Chapter 31 of the Confession discusses the communal aspect of interpretation. The bolded part is especially controversial in some non-reformed evangelical circles.


> Chapter 31. Of Synods and Councils.
> 1. For the better government and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.a
> 
> a. Acts 15:2, 4, 6.
> ...


----------



## Civbert (Jun 8, 2006)

I've always understood the idea of "private interpretation" to mean that Scripture may not be interpreted to mean one thing for one person and something else for another. I don't think the idea is so much the problem of individuals interpreting Scripture verses the church interpreting Scripture - or who has authority to interpret Scripture. 

Individuals must interpret scripture - but the same verses can not say A to one person and B to another. There's no message in Scripture just for you personally, that is different for someone else. 


So which is the more correct reading?:
a) it is about church vs individual interpretation 
b) it's about getting separate private messages out of the same verses




> _2Pe 1:20-21 NASB_
> 
> But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, _(21)_ for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.




There are other options. It could mean simply that the Scriptures were inspired by God, and not derived by man. That doesn't seem to fit with "interpretation" but I don't know what is being "interpreted". I assumed it was talking about interpreting Scripture.



[Edited on 6-8-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> I've always understood the idea of "private interpretation" to mean that Scripture may not be interpreted to mean one thing for one person and something else for another. I don't think the idea is so much the problem of individuals interpreting Scripture verses the church interpreting Scripture - or who has authority to interpret Scripture.


The issue certainly relates to who has the authority to determine meaning.

The point, as I've uncovered so far, is that we are expected to privately read and learn from the Scriptures. They are not supposed to be witheld from the laity. We are not merely supposed to have an implicit faith whereby we know nothing of the teachings of Scripture but merely trust that our Church is correct in all she teaches. Rather, the Scriptures are given to us to be read and studied to equip us in the faith.

The issue, however, becomes one of proper interpretation. Matt's article above does a good job of showing that all are not equally equipped nor does the Spirit illumine the understanding equally among all. You cannot separate the Reformational view of Private Interpretation from the Reformers high sense of Ecclesiastical authority (not in the sense Rome had for sure) and the unity of the faith.



> Individuals must interpret scripture - but the same verses can not say A to one person and B to another. There's no message in Scripture just for you personally, that is different for someone else.


Quite true that the interpretation is singular. Applications are virtually limited given a proper interpretation. The issue is who is qualified to determine the proper interpretation?



> So which is the more correct reading?:
> a) it is about church vs individual interpretation
> b) it's about getting separate private messages out of the same verses


I don't think it's either. The individual must read and understand what he believes a passage is teaching him but he also sits under and learns from a Church that brings him to a mature understanding. He cannot really be corrected or improved in his understanding of Scripture if he has no idea what he thinks Scripture says to begin with. It is also not an issue that each individual has the right to determine the original intent of the passage.


> > _2Pe 1:20-21 NASB_
> >
> > But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, _(21)_ for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
> 
> ...


This request was made because I'm leading my Adult Sunday School class through the study of Scripture and this topic arose. Reading Matt's article above was very helpful and brought some ideas together in my mind.

I'm increasingly convinced that many of us in the Reformed camp are very unlike our forebears in our respect for Ecclesiastical authority. I won't repeat here what I wrote in the thread about the new Presbyterian denomination.

We could neither strive for unity of the faith nor would Church discipline exist if the Church had not authority to determine the meaning of Scripture. In other words, let's say that I am firmly convinced that the Scriptures did not consider adultery a sin. The elders approach me and say: "Rich, you are cheating on your wife." I could respond: "Yes but I have studied this passage and it is OK." Nobody argues when they put out an adulterer. Unfortunately, I think most of us agree only because we agree with their interpretation of the Scriptures.

OK, that's an easy one. How about Chalcedon then? We had someone call something that the Church has affirmed for 1600 years nonsense. Why? Because there was language that _he_ found nonsensical.

How about ministers like Lee Irons that are disciplined by their Presbytery and, instead of submitting, leave the ministry?

There is much more to understanding the Scriptures than determining what we believe is the proper interpretation is according to whatever epistimological or hermaneutical grid we have adopted.

[Edited on 6-8-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Scott (Jun 9, 2006)

I analogize the situation to civil law. We have statutes and laws. Individuals are expected to know and understand their legal duties. But when litigants disagree over how a statute is to be interpreted or applied, we need a court system to make an authoritative declaration. The only other option is to never have resolution. Acts 15 is an example of an ecclesial court in action and Acts 16:4 tells us the court's authority.

The civil law analogy is not perfect, as in real life most non-lawyers don't read statutes, even though they are expected to understand their legal responsibilities. In the Christian life, people should be immersed in scriptures. But I think it still illustrates the point about the need for courts, whether civil courts or church courts.


----------



## Civbert (Jun 9, 2006)

> _2Pe 1:20-21 NASB_
> 
> But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, _(21)_ for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.



Assuming these verses are the origin of the phrase "private interpretation" - then I'm not convinced that they have anything to do with Church's interpretation of Scripture. 

What I find interesting, is that part of the problem in understanding these verses is that many of the possible interpretations are in agreement with the rest of Scripture. If I initially interpreted the verses to say something I thought was contrary to other Scripture, then I'd know that there was something wrong with my interpretation somewhere. But when several interpretations all seem to be consistent with other Scripture, that makes it more difficult to decided which is most likely the correct one. 

In the end, I don't think it has anything to do with the official church interpretation might differ with an individual interprets Scripture verses - because the second verse focuses on the fact that what determines correct interpretation is the meaning intended by God when the verses were written. So I think the point of the verses is the meaning of any Scriptures is not a product of a persons interpretation (such that different readers could have different legitimate interpretations of the same text), but the meaning is the exact one God expressed and men (inspired by the Holy Spirit) wrote. Only one interpretation of Scripture is correct, the one that God intends. So I don't think office church interpretations are the issue here.

I do think this issue of the churches authority to interpret Scripture is a legitimate question. I just don't think 2Pe 1:20-21 is addressing it.

Are there any other verses which speak of the "Church's" authority to interpret Scripture for the body, or is this it? The question is odd since the Church _is_ the Body - so really it's a question of the authority of the leaders of the Church to interpret Scripture. And since we place Scripture over the church elders, things get even more complicated. 

Luther rejected the "Church's" authority to dictate doctrine over Scripture's. So one question is what does "Church" mean when we speak of the Church's authority. For many it means the leaders of the Church (bishops, priests, popes; or elders and church courts and councils). But these are to serve the Word of God, not have authority over it. 

Anyway, it's an interesting issue, but I don't think the answer is in 2nd Peter 1:20. Any other verses?


----------



## Civbert (Jun 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jim Snyder_
> Check out Charles Hodge on private interpretation...
> http://www.dabar.org/Theology/Hodge/HodgeV1/Int_C06.htm
> 
> Jim



Great reference. Hodge not only refrains from giving the Church any authority to interpret Scripture, but instead he shows individuals have a "Right of Private Judgment" in section 5. 

He references 2 Peter only to prove the authority of the writings of Prophets to speak for God. He doesn't use it to give the Church any authority.

Hodge give _Scripture_ all authority over the Church, and individuals the _right_ of private judgment. The Church has no authority (including the authority of interpretation) over the Scriptures. Only the individuals have the right of interpretation, and so it is the fact that:


> all the true people of God in every age and in every part of the Church, in the exercise of their private judgment, in accordance with the simple rules above stated, agree as to the meaning of Scripture in all things necessary either in faith or practice, is a decisive proof of the perspicuity of the Bible, and of the safety of allowing the people the enjoyment of the divine right of private judgment.



So Hodges writings are about the authority of Scripture over all areas, including the Church, and not the Churches authority over individuals, and finally the right of the individuals to private judgment of interpretation rather than the Church's authority in interpretation.


> The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this subject.
> 
> _ Hodge, Systematic Theology, Ch 6, Â§ 5. Perspicuity of the Scriptures. The Right of Private Judgment. _


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 9, 2006)

I think I gave plenty of examples of implicit authority to rightly interpret the Scriptures that Elders must have if they are to rule. Disputations over the meaning of whether or not somebody is sinning would never be resolved if the Elders had no more authority to determine meaning than than somebody who was not ordained to the office.

Elder: You committed adultery.
Person: That's _your_ interpretation. You have no authority to interpret Scripture and bind my conscience.

Further:


> And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers , for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head "” Christ "” from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.


There can be no unity of the faith if pastors and teachers have no authority to rule to some extent on meaning. This does not mean that they stand above the Scriptures or establish its authority. It doesn't mean that they teach infallibly either. It does mean, however, that they have authority to rule and correct and have more authority over meaning than we do.

A charge that Roman Catholics will make is "...how can a Church rule on the Word unless her interpretation is infallible?"

The answer is that a Church need not be infallible or stand above the Word to have real authority any more than a father need to be infallible in order to have authority over his son. The Church may err but it is not, in every case, the "son's" job to assume she has erred. In some cases it may be necessary but those who go around questioning every teaching that the Church holds are no different than the son who continually asks his father "Why should I do that?" whenever the father is teaching him something.

I would finally add that councils and confessions would be quite meaningless if the Church had no authority to pen them or to enforce them upon their ministers and members (Acts 15 comes to mind).


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 9, 2006)

I just want to say this topic could not have come up at a better time - I latley feel overwhelmed on where to really begin study whether I should just toss out all my books and go through it on my own. Or use the resources out there as an aid. There are so many topics out there to go over its unbeleivable let alone addressing all the controversies......


----------



## ef (Jun 16, 2006)

I just read an 8-yr. old email discussion between Dr. DG Hart and Professor John Frame on the RPW and I think that Hart's answer to the following question by Scott Pryor makes some great points on this topic:

Q- "As an attorney I would assess Frame's and Hart's relative regard for tradition
vis-a-vis interpretation of the Bible in terms of differing burdens of proof.
For Frame, the burden of proof on a proponent of change from patterns of
traditional Presbyterian worship is low, analogous to the civil standard of a
mere "preponderance of the evidence". Hart, on the other hand, asserts that
such a proponent must prove his or her case something like "beyond a
reasonable doubt."

From both gentlemen, I ask the following:

1. In light of the principle of sola scriptura, how do either of you justify the
assignment of any weight to tradition?

2. Assuming that you can provide such sola scriptura justification, how
do each of you justify the varying weights of authority you assign to
tradition?"

A-

"Sorry, but these questions have produced a long answer, an answer
that disagrees with the question´s premises, but that because of its length
suggests they are very good and important questions. Or else they touched a nerve.

Mr. Pryor's questions connote that sola scriptura and tradition are
at odds, as if tradition is a barrier to a proper understanding of the
Bible. This strikes me as a very modern and Enlightened understanding of
tradition (which may explain why Protestants in America embraced the
Enlightenment as much as they did.) But there have been Protestants who
did not see the two as antagonistic. Zacharias Ursinus, one of the authors
of the Heidelberg Catechism, is said to have desired that his catechism be
bound together with the Bible at the front, that church members would know how to interpret the Bible aright. It also seems that in Presbyterian
ordination vows we have a similar view of the Bible and tradition if we
subscribe to the Westminster Standards as "the system of doctrine" taught
in the Bible. This suggests that the Bible teaches the Westminster
Standards. In other words, systematic theology is not a threat to the
Bible but in fact a defense of it. Creeds and catechisms, as Bavinck
argued, were a way to protect the church from heresy and preserve the truth of God's word. So we can't put the Bible and tradition in air tight
compartments, opening the lid of the latter only after we have sealed the
lid to the former. For this reason, I believe Mr. Pryor's questions beg
another question about the relationship between the Bible and tradition.

To pose the Bible and tradition as rival authorities is to take a
fairly individualistic and ahistorical view of the ways that individuals
read the Bible. We never come to the Bible in a vacuum, like we are
deserted on some island and find a book that has on the binding, "Holy
Bible." We are not like the abstract individuals of whom Locke and Hobbes
conceived when talking about the origins of law and social contracts. When
we come to the Bible, if we are unbelievers, we come not only as God's
enemies, predisposed to hate what it says. But we come situated in time
and place, with assumptions about how to read (if we are literate, a big if
in the overall sweep of human history), and how to interpret words,
sentences, paragraphs, poetry, that are part of the culture in which we
find ourselves. In the same way, if we grow up as covenant children we are reared with a presumption in favor of the Bible, along with the ways of
interpretation and theological constructions provided by parents, Sunday
School teachers, and pastors. And covenant children also carry around the
baggage of their culture about words and how to interpret ancient texts and what to make of works claiming divine origin. 

What we also need to remember is that we Americans live in a
culture shaped in large measure by the Enlightenment. That heritage is
biased against tradition, creeds, and the dead hand of the past, and seeks
liberation from all of those superstitious and bigoted barriers to truth.

In turn it is biased in favor of the rational, autonomous individual who
looks at things without prejudice because guided by reason. The
Enlightenment not only bedeviled the Princeton theology's apologetics, but
more staggering was its effects on American evangelicals who established
their own creed of "no creed but the Bible." It is amazing that in the
context of the Enlightenment and America's infatuation with science that
Princetonians were as confessional as they turned out to be. Conversely,
if we want to see the effects of the Enlightenment hermeneutic on
evangelicalism I recommend Nathan O. Hatch's The Democratization of
American Christianity, which documents the anti-creedalism, and
anti-clericalism of Baptists, Methodists, Disciples, Mormons and
African-Americans, all in the name of the Bible only, which is English for
sola scriptura. 

So in talking about the rival authorities of sola scriptura and
tradition we need to recognize that what we have here are two different
traditions of reading the Bible, not simply the Reformed tradition and the
Bible. The one tradition says we must read the Bible without any prejudice
or presumption. We must come to it clean and neutral. As I understand it,
that is the evangelical tradition leavened heavily by the Enlightenment and
it is a remarkably naive view of human objectivity (both with regard to
depravity and culture) and it is ironically a tradition. Anyone who has
grown up in evangelical or fundamentalist churches knows that these Bible
only Christians have their own tradition of hermeneutics -- the Scofield
Reference Bible is one of the best examples. 

The other tradition says that we have a hermeneutic (Reformed) and
that the Bible teaches a system of doctrine. It has ways of reading the
Bible, patterns of worship, forms of government that have been around for
at least 350 years. These ways have been tested and tried. And while new
things may be learned about the Bible, challenges to the tradition's
confessional standards will always be examined to see if the argument stems
exclusively from a candid reading of the Bible or from another theological
or philosophical perspective hidden by the claim of "the Bible only." 

Let's make this a little less abstract. Take the case of a new
Christian who is reading the Bible through for the first time. First, does
he come to the Bible alone, really alone? Has he merely picked the Bible
up at the K-Mart and started reading and come to faith on his own? Or more
likely, has he come to the Bible under the influence of a group of
Christians, whether in a local congregation, a national denomination, or a
parachurch group. (By the way, he comes to some translation, not the
original Greek and Hebrew, so even the Bible he reads reflects some
tradition of interpretation. Isn't that why the RSV is a problem?) In
which case the young Christian comes to the Bible with a tradition of
biblical interpretation and a system of doctrine implicit in his
understanding of Christianity. Second, can this new convert decide the
controversies of two millennia of church history on his own reading of the
Bible? Can he weigh in on Arianism, Pelagianism, justification,
Arminianism, etc. on his own, sola Scriptura? Or might he and his
Christian group be relying (standing on the shoulders) of some of those
debates in the past whether he knows it or not. Is he Trinitarian, is he
Protestant, is he Anabaptist? Won't that affect his understanding of the
Bible? And shouldn't it? And as a church historian I would recommend that
he study the history of the church and of his tradition to see where it
comes from, while also looking at the way other traditions have interpreted
Scripture. The give and take of traditions will help him grow in his
understanding of the Bible. And even though some of those traditions will
turn out to be more or less wrong, the study of tradition is a good thing
because chances are none of us has an original interpretation of the Bible.

Let's take another example, this time that of a Presbyterian
minister. Does he read the Bible free from tradition? I have already
argued that it is impossible for any of us to free our selves from
tradition. Even the language that we use has not been invented anew by
every generation but depends on the uses of language through the ages. But
would it be a good thing for this minister to try to read the Bible apart
from the Reformed tradition? Not if we believe the Reformed tradition is
true. And not if this minister has fully considered the solemnity of his
ordination vows. If as the Westminster Confession teaches a person should
swear to "nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth," then why
would we expect a Presbyterian minister to come to the Bible as if the
Westminster Standards were up in the balance. Can his deeply held
convictions be turned on and off like a light so that he comes to the Bible
without prejudice? And isn't it a good thing to have Presbyterian
ministers who have firm and deep convictions about the truth of the
Reformed faith? Presbyterianism, I believe, is not just a form of
government, plus the Westminster Standards. It is a way of life, with a
distinctive piety that orders not only the way we read the Bible and the
way we worship God but also the way we order our week and live out our
vocations. Presbyterianism is an identity, not an opinion. What is more,
by the nature of his vows this minister is bound to read the Bible in
certain ways, that is, ways that promote and defend the Westminster
Standards. He is bound to do this because in taking these vows his own
integrity is at stake. If he has sworn to the Standards and then disagrees
with them without notifying the proper authorities he is in danger of
losing his integrity. (While I am at it, the kind of binding implied in
adhering to traditions, it seems to me is a good thing. Human nature being
what it is, restraint of sinfulness and pride is valuable. Of course, it
is not valuable if it leads to false religion. But liberty from tradition
for the sake of not being narrow, sectarian or rigid sounds to me like the
kind of liberty promoted by the Enlightenment, a liberty that
presuppositionalism has taught us is a bad thing.) 

This does not mean that there are no dangers in tradition. As the
Confession says in chapter one, controversies of religion are to be decided
not by what Calvin, Warfield, or Machen taught, but on the basis of what
Scripture teaches. But in a church that requires subscription to the
Standards the teachings of the Standards are not supposed to be
controversial. What may be controversial are the religious implications of
scientific teachings, cultural developments, or some reading of Scripture
that falls outside the Standards. But the Standards themselves are not
supposed to be controverted in a confessional church. If they are, then
the ministers seeking ordination who believe the tradition is controverted
may want to look for another communion. As one student recently said to
me, if someone comes before presbytery and takes exception to infant
baptism, even making a credible but not persuasive exegetical case, what is
presbytery supposed to do, ordain him and change the Standards (a
possibility) or show him the exegetical case, i.e. the Reformed
interpretation of baptism as taught in the Bible? In other words,
individuals not convinced of the exegetical case that Reformed have made
historically for their confessions should not seek ordination in
Presbyterian and Reformed churches.

But if we recognize the dangers of excessive reliance on tradition,
we should also recognize the dangers of the Enlightenment tradition's quest
for liberation from tradition, that is, the tradition of no tradition. This
tradition exalts the individual and fosters the notion that the individual
is autonomous. Not only does this view conflict with God's claims upon all
his creatures, but it also flies in the face of human history. As much as
we try there is no escaping the past. For that reason we had better be
more discerning about the past to see which tradition is shaping us."

I thought that the points made above were spot-on not only as a critique of Fundie/Evangelical "Solo Scriptura," but also a great illustration of the type of reaction we get when that mentality is met with a confessional approach. Of course, my enjoyment of the answer came after reading the whole discussion that, with the questions and answers at the end, fills 118 pgs of 1.5 spaced (I do that for easier reading) 12 pt font word doc. 

Frame, In my humble opinion, demonstrates the epistemological problems with his "Solo Scriptura" position very nicely in that discussion. That is, a lot of the semantic disconnect seems to me to be due in no small part to Frame's subscription to such a view. 

Hart is the man.

EFW

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by ef]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 16, 2006)

Thanks Eric. I've been reading Frame's _Doctrine of the Knowledge of God_ and some of the above is reminiscent of him. I think he has some great insights on the role that the Bible, the Church, and the self play in understanding the Scriptures.


----------



## DTK (Jun 17, 2006)

> To pose the Bible and tradition as rival authorities is to take a
> fairly individualistic and ahistorical view of the ways that individuals
> read the Bible....


I think that we need to have a great respect for tradition that has been tried and tested, but there is something about this statement (taken by itself, of course) that seems to fly in the face of what Jesus asked the Pharisees in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, _"Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?"_ Unless we want to suggest Jesus took "a fairly individualistic and ahistorical view of the ways that individuals read the Bible," this remark doesn't always hold true. Jesus does suggest in these passages that "the Bible and tradition were rival authorities," and thus we need to reckon with his words. I understand that "we never come to the Bible in a vacuum," but neither did the Pharisees; and quite frankly, they were wrong. They were rebuked and corrected by Jesus. I am not satisfied with Hart's assertion above, not because his caution is without merit, but because it doesn't always hold true. The Bible is a rival authority to many traditions, and to ignore that reality seems to turn Jesus' words on their head.

I have found two articles by Anthony N. S. Lane helpful in this respect, though I think I think more clarification would help us all. These are his articles "Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post"“Reformation Slogan" in P.E. Satterthwaite and D.F. Wright, _A Pathway into the Holy Scripture_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) and "Scripture, Tradition and Church" in _Vox Evangelica_, Vol. 16, 1975. Here are some sample quotes...


> *Anthony N. S. Lane:* If Trent and Vatican II both permit belief in the material sufficiency of Scripture, does this mean that Rome has returned to the position of the Early Church? No. Take a dogma like the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. It is not that Catholic exegete´s confidence of being able to prove such a doctrine from Scripture has suddenly increased. It is more the case that historical studies have shown that the earliest tradition offers no more support for the doctrine than does Scripture. If the doctrine is to [be] seen as part of the apostolic deposit of faith, neither Scripture nor tradition suffices. Anthony N. S. Lane, "˜Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post"“Reformation Slogan´ in P.E. Satterthwaite and D.F. Wright, _A Pathway into the Holy Scripture_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 317-318.
> 
> *Anthony N. S. Lane:* At the end [of] the day, if there is an infallible interpreter of a text, who has the final word to its interpretation, it is the interpreter that is the final norm. Against this, sola Scriptura asserts the supremacy of the text over its interpreter. Of course, Scripture needs to be interpreted, but it does not need a normative interpretation. Anthony N. S. Lane, "˜Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post"“Reformation Slogan´ in P.E. Satterthwaite and D.F. Wright, _A Pathway into the Holy Scripture_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 325-326.
> 
> ...


This is why I think we must posit that Scripture alone is the _norma normans non normata_ (the norm that norms but is not normed) by any other standard. Else we, too, run the risk of making the commandment of God of no effect by our tradition. (Matthew 15, Mark 7).

More work for clarification needs to be done, and I'm not convinced that "Hart is the man."

DTK


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 17, 2006)

This is a good thread and worth exploring.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> More work for clarification needs to be done, and I'm not convinced that "Hart is the man."
> 
> DTK



I concur. I think Hart not being trained as a philosopher has hurt his ability to deal with nuance.

I only made it through half of that debate, but it seemed that everytime Frame didnt regurgitate what Hart thought the historical position to be, Hart was ready to call for the "stakes and torches".

CT


----------



## ef (Jun 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > To pose the Bible and tradition as rival authorities is to take a
> ...



I think that this statement ought not be taken out of the context in which it was made; a debate with John Frame who has serious issues with his philosophy of theology, particularly those relating to the RPW and its meaning. 

I'll grant that you're right on your assessment of the statement pulled from its context. I think it would have been more correct if it had been given stated: 

"To pose the Bible and tradition as rival authorities _necessarily_ is to take a
fairly individualistic and ahistorical view of the ways that individuals
read the Bible...."

Frame, by redefining a RPW that is suitable according to his reading of Scripture (or perhaps according to his taste in worship, an accusation that Hart could be worthy of as well) and then saying that he subscribes to it is being intellectually dishonest. Are there details of the RPW as historically characterized and practiced in churches subscribing to the Westminster Standards that Hart may gloss over or miss? Perhaps. But Frame seems incapable of recognizing the presuppositions informing his biblicism.


It seems to me that Frame, as so many in the PCA have seemed all too eager to do since we allowed for "good faith subscription," places the emphasis of his subscription more upon the subjective questions surrounding what the "system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards" are rather than conscienciously examining his views in light of what the Standards actually teach. Of course, it is all done in the name of a certain rationalistic biblicism rather than through the channels set up for such grievances to take place, namely the Church courts, which is exactly what Hart points out. 

If we set Scripture and the views set forth in the Westminster Standards as necessarily opposed to one another subscription will become meaningless. If we set the Standards up as equal to Scripture we violate the teachings of the Standards about themselves, and our subscription again becomes meaningless. If we examine the Standards (as they have been historically interpreted) and find either the Standards or the historical interpretation wanting, then we owe it to our oath to God (purity and peace of the Church) to bring those concerns before the appropriate church courts. 

in Christ and for His Church,

EFW

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by ef]


----------



## ef (Jun 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by DTK_
> ...



Hart comes across as overly reactionary in a couple of his comments, particularly when equating Frame's views on the RPW as tantamount to modernism. This is the way Frame takes it anyway, and what he accuses Hart of, but I don't think that Hart is so far off if you examine exactly what he was saying.

The modernists said they subscribed to something, but when really prodded were found to be saying something quite different than what the Standards or the Bible actually say. Frame says that he subscribes to the RPW and, if you've read his work on this subject, you have to agree that he does not. Obviously Frame is correct that his lack of conformity with the Standards is not as significant as the modernists on creation, fall, redemption, etc. Nonetheless, I would suggest that there are many denominations that line up with Scripture on those issues but not on the RPW, not asking for ministers to subscribe to a document that puts it forth so plainly as the Westminster Standards, and ask him to go to one of those. 

He even admits that he doesn't when he suggests that his RP would apply to all of life, by failing to recognize the meaning of the RPW as having to do with limits upon Church power to worship on the Lord's Day in the first place. The Christian freedom he accuses regulativists of denying their fellow believers in worship is the same one he'd deny them in all of life.

It would seem to me, given all of this, that it is Frame who is unable to deal with nuances, and even more than that, is guilty of a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty. I completely disagree with the man, but would have a great deal more respect for him if he treated this issue the way that Revs. Schlissel and Gore do. They admit that they don't subscribe to the RPW and reformulate principles they see as better conforming to Scriptural passages on New Covenant worship. 

in Christ,

EFW


----------



## DTK (Jun 18, 2006)

> The statement: To pose the Bible and tradition as rival authorities is to take a fairly individualistic and ahistorical view of the ways that individuals read the Bible.
> 
> I think that this statement ought not be taken out of the context in which it was made; a debate with John Frame who has serious issues with his philosophy of theology, particularly those relating to the RPW and its meaning.


Then I will clarify. I don't think the statement serves us well even in context. And further, for the sake of clarity, I have no desire to defend or exonerate either man referenced. Moreover, I think our _norma normans_, _viz._, the Westminster Standards, offers us a much more balanced approach. It teaches us respect for our church courts per paragraph 31:3, as well as cautions us against setting up a rival standard to Holy Scripture per paragraph 31:4. It seems to me that paragraph 31:4 anticipates a potential, unscriptural rival, and therefore warns us lest our ecclesial courts, to which we owe our submission, begin to legislate rather than adjudicate any given issue before us. To be sure, tradition need not be, but has often proven itself to be, a rival to the ultimate authority of Holy Scripture. If the history of the papacy teaches us anything, surely it teaches us that.

DTK


----------



## ef (Jun 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > The statement: To pose the Bible and tradition as rival authorities is to take a fairly individualistic and ahistorical view of the ways that individuals read the Bible.
> ...



I agree with your assessment here, though I don't think that the statement we were discussing originally disagrees with what you say, either. You're right when you remind us that continuing reformation is not meant to address the Standards (as in, "continually reforming to the likeness of the Standards") but to point us toward our one and only ultimate authority, Scripture itself.

And for the record and the sake of intellectual honesty I will admit that I have a certain affection for Elder Hart and that he and I share background and influences. While I do know that this could become an issue in debating his statements, I do believe that in the context of that discussion his statement made sense.

I also have serious issues with Prof. Frame's philosophy of theology and his seriously decieving "subscription" to the Standards.

Leaving for Lord's Day worship,

efw



[Edited on 6-18-2006 by ef]


----------

