# Advice for a proper balance



## matthewd2013 (May 6, 2008)

When portioning the time that I spend seeking God, I tend heavily toward reading people that have been tremendously gifted at understanding the bible, gifted with genius, gifted with time for study such as owens, calvin, edwards, hodge, vos, etc. I'm not sure if it is healthy, but I find that I feel comparatively incompetent at reading the scriptures and I feel that I am more edified by these men's sermons and books. Although it doesn't always happen, I have a desire to memorize scripture and catechisms and pray but I find that I would almost always prefer to read these sermons and books by great men of the faith. I have been regenerate for about 2 years now and was wondering if this is normal and/or healthy. So what do you think? should I be concentrating less on reading men that have shortened their life as a result of spending so much time understanding God's revelation of himself and attempting to help others understand it, and instead, read the scriptures more? 

Matt


----------



## Leslie (May 6, 2008)

I'm with you on this. As one who grew up seriously overdosed on Bible stories, it's difficult or impossible to read the scriptures with meaning.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (May 6, 2008)

Hi

In my humble opinion there is nothing wrong with reading these great men of God. However, in reading them to the exclusion of your own Bible reading, and praying is unhealthy.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 6, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi
> 
> In my humble opinion there is nothing wrong with reading these great men of God. However, in reading them to the exclusion of your own Bible reading, and praying is unhealthy.
> 
> ...



 How can we understand the Scriptures unless someone teach us. I would know virtually nothing if it was not for other men showing me what the Bible teaches.


----------



## JBaldwin (May 6, 2008)

While I agree that it is good to read the works of godly men, it is also important that you spend time in God's Word daily reading and allowing God's Spirit to speak to you. May I suggest finding a daily Bible reading plan. There are many available. This way you can be in the Word daily, but still have time to read what others have to say. 

Here's a link to some good online Bible reading plans: Devotions (ESV Bible Online)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 6, 2008)

I understand the desire to skip over the Word and go straight to the good interpreters. But I know these men of whom you speak are among those who point past themselves to the Word of life, without which we and they are nothing. Everyone's situation is different, and I'm in no position to say "do this and not that" or "do more of this and less of that." Partly because I don't know your situation, and partly because I know I myself need to spend more time in the Word. We must all search our hearts, and search the scriptures more. That doesn't mean we have to read only the Word to the exclusion of godly, uninspired men. Even the Apostle Paul took time to read outside the Scriptures. But all things in their proper proportion, as Baxter says, the Scriptures must have preeminence. We love the writings of godly men because they help to appreciate the Scriptures more, and not the other way around. All our loves -- whether they be family, friends, books, music, the PB, or whatever -- must be subordinated to our love of God and his self-revelation. When this is done, all else falls into place. 

Read Psalm 119. That's a great place to start fresh. Each stanza is a bite-sized section that you can read, study, meditate upon, and even sing. And one thing you will find impressed upon you again and again is how the Psalmist loves the Word. It is more precious to him than anything else. It is his greatest comfort, and surest foundation in times of trial. 

When the martyrs of old had their Bibles taken from them, they had Psalms and other Scriptures memorized. They hid the Word in their hearts as it were. And so they were faithful to this teaching:

Psalm 119.11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. 

Links and Downloads Manager - Christian Walk Links - Useful Directions for Reading and Searching the Scriptures - The PuritanBoard
Links and Downloads Manager - Christian Walk Links - How We May Read the Scriptures With Most Spiritual Profit (Part I) - The PuritanBoard
Links and Downloads Manager - Christian Walk Links - How We May Read the Scriptures With Most Spiritual Profit (Part II) - The PuritanBoard
Advice On Reading
Paul—his Cloak and His Books


----------



## matthewd2013 (May 6, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> While I agree that it is good to read the works of godly men, it is also important that you spend time in God's Word daily reading and allowing God's Spirit to speak to you. May I suggest finding a daily Bible reading plan. There are many available. This way you can be in the Word daily, but still have time to read what others have to say.
> 
> Here's a link to some good online Bible reading plans: Devotions (ESV Bible Online)



I guess the reason I haven't felt overly pressed to begin a consistent daily unassisted bible reading if I'm reading from trustworthy men writing about the bible is that I read something in Hodge's systematic theology book 1 about mysticism in scriptural interpretation and he seems to say that the revealed word of God is objectively knowable to the mind and understanding of the scripture must come through reason or from a rational understanding and seems to be against the idea that the truth of scripture comes from the HS communicating to you on a non rational level. 


> According to [mysticism], God, or the Spirit of God, holds direct communion with the soul; and by the excitement of its religious feelings gives it intuitions of truth, and enables it to attain a kind, a degree, and an extent of knowledge, unattainable in any other way... The mystical method, in its supernatural form, assumes that God by his immediate intercourse with the soul, reveals through the Feelings and by means, or in the way of intuitions, divine truth independently of the outward teaching of his Word; and that it is this inward light, and not the Scriptures, which we are to follow.



Although he does not deny that the HS must apply that objective knowledge to the believers soul so that, as Vos might say, that objective information is not simply known in the Hellenistic sense but also in the Shemetic sense. 

Hopefully this doesn't come across argumentatively, but do you think that the only way/best way/primary way that "God speaks to you" in personal private searching is through direct unassisted reading of the scriptures rather than through commentaries, sermons, theology books etc. I really did post this because I would like to change the manner in which I seek God if it is deficient. 

So, should I read the naked Psalms rather than reading Treasury of David. Should I read I Corinthians 13 unassisted rather than reading "Charity and Its Fruits by Edwards" 

Thanks for the replies. 

Matt


----------



## Davidius (May 6, 2008)

Ephesians 4:11 is clear that God has given us teachers to equip us. The broad evangelical mindset that "it's just me and my bible" is, ironically, unbiblical (remember, too, that the average believer probably didn't have his own copy of the whole bible until invention of the printing press). While I agree that it's important to read the scriptures on your own, I believe that it's _just as important_ to make liberal use of God's clearly appointed means of instruction - the men to whom the gift of teaching has been given. God has not given us teachers so that we can piously refuse them for the "more intimate/spiritual/whatever/blah blah blah" approach of wholly personalized doctrinal education.


----------



## JBaldwin (May 6, 2008)

> I guess the reason I haven't felt overly pressed to begin a consistent daily unassisted bible reading if I'm reading from trustworthy men writing about the bible is that I read something in Hodge's systematic theology book 1 about mysticism in scriptural interpretation and he seems to say that the revealed word of God is objectively knowable to the mind and understanding of the scripture must come through reason or from a rational understanding and seems to be against the idea that the truth of scripture comes from the HS communicating to you on a non rational level.
> 
> 
> > According to [mysticism], God, or the Spirit of God, holds direct communion with the soul; and by the excitement of its religious feelings gives it intuitions of truth, and enables it to attain a kind, a degree, and an extent of knowledge, unattainable in any other way... The mystical method, in its supernatural form, assumes that God by his immediate intercourse with the soul, reveals through the Feelings and by means, or in the way of intuitions, divine truth independently of the outward teaching of his Word; and that it is this inward light, and not the Scriptures, which we are to follow.
> ...




I do not think for a moment that we should ignore the good words of godly men. I spend a lot of my time reading good works, discussing theology with folks on the PB in addition to Bible reading. However, I do believe that God gave us the Holy Spirit for a guide, and I am often astounded and delighted when I read the Word, find a truth and then discover that Bunyan, Calvin or Hodge saw the same thing in God's Word. It confirms to me God's work in my life.


----------



## Pergamum (May 6, 2008)

Get Max McClean or some other gifted reader and go for a walk and listen to whole books of the Bible read at once. It helps for me to read or listen fast to grasp the overall messages and themes of Paul's letters or the flow of a narative. I think we too often pick one or two single verses for a "devotional reading" ("Our Daily Crumb") and try to pour meaning into small snippets when it is better to read whole books at a time.

I confess, I do not read the Bible everyday. I read it every other day or so and go for length and try not to stop until I finish some MAJOR section or a whole book. For instance, I get busy on Monday and Tuesday and just pray, on Wednesday and Thursday I finish all of Job, on Friday I am busy, on saturday I read Jude once in one version and one in another version, plus a commentary on Jude, On Sunday church, on Monday I am busy, and on Tuesday I read all of I Cor. and Wed all of 2 Corinthians. Right now I am working on reading John in another language and this is REALLY tough, so I have to go slow - but normally I like to read a lot quickly and only occasionally read a little very deeply.

Some might think this uneven, but it "mixes it up", keeps Scripture fresh and helps me to see overall themes and the "big picture." 

Often when I walk I listen to Bible readings too. I am amazed at how much I hear anew when I hear it spoken rather than reading it verse by verse. Verss and chapters are good for finding addresses, but fosters a fragmentary mindsight and I often try to throw out these sometimes arbitary divisions and want to read to completion.


----------



## py3ak (May 6, 2008)

matt.meisberger said:


> I guess the reason I haven't felt overly pressed to begin a consistent daily unassisted bible reading if I'm reading from trustworthy men writing about the bible is that I read something in Hodge's systematic theology book 1 about mysticism in scriptural interpretation and he seems to say that the revealed word of God is objectively knowable to the mind and understanding of the scripture must come through reason or from a rational understanding and seems to be against the idea that the truth of scripture comes from the HS communicating to you on a non rational level.
> 
> 
> > According to [mysticism], God, or the Spirit of God, holds direct communion with the soul; and by the excitement of its religious feelings gives it intuitions of truth, and enables it to attain a kind, a degree, and an extent of knowledge, unattainable in any other way... The mystical method, in its supernatural form, assumes that God by his immediate intercourse with the soul, reveals through the Feelings and by means, or in the way of intuitions, divine truth independently of the outward teaching of his Word; and that it is this inward light, and not the Scriptures, which we are to follow.
> ...



Matt, two points. One is that reading the Scriptures is not parallel to mysticism, per Hodge's definition that you quoted. Notice that he conceives of mysticism as assuming that divine truth is revealed independently of the outward teaching of God's Word; but that is not opposed to private reading, but rather to an "inward light". If someone says, "I don't need to read the Scripture because God wakes me up at 4:17 a.m. to talk with me," that would be mysticism. And the second ties right in to that observation. It need not be an either or. Should you read the Psalms instead of the Treasury of David? Why need it be an _instead_? But let me ask, do you read Hodge directly or do you rely on secondary sources? Then again, do you expect to get the benefit of Hodge without any time spent to digest what he says? And so I would say _ad fontes_, and that it is essential that you would meditate on Scripture for yourself (just as, I hope, you wouldn't let someone else chew your own food, even if you let them cook it for you).

More in general, I would ask how anything but a systematic personal reading of the word can guarantee that you are not neglecting some part of what is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness? And I would ask what the attitude of the Psalmist would lead him to do if he had the inestimable privilege of a complete copy of God's word?



> O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
> Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
> I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
> I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.
> ...



[KJV]Psalm 119:97-104[/KJV]

If he didn't have a copy of the available Scriptures, it seems he must have been very diligent indeed in acquiring a knowledge of it some other way. 

Saying that in history not all believers have had a copy of the Scriptures (or have been able to read at all) is of course true. But in that case two remarks further can be made. One is that they were providentially hindered. Another is that they would have (and their commitment to this goal proves it) counted it a great privilege to have that access. If you have the Psalmist's attitude towards Scripture (and if you don't, you should), and desire to know God's word as it deserves to be known, is there a more straightforward way to arrive at a mastery of it then a consistent use of it, through personal reading and meditation, the use of such helps as one has, and the attendance on the public reading and preaching of God's word?

No doubt this discussion could be drawn out to great length, and various objections could be raised, and on and on. But here are the facts: we all of us have a copy of the Scriptures. We all of us have liberty to read it. We all of us confess that it is God's word written. We confess that this book is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus. The logical next step is that we make a due use of all the ordinary means: those ordinary means include personal study, individual scrutiny, solitary meditation and systematic reading.

Personally, with regard to the balance, I read the Bible more than any other book, because I am constantly reading the Bible. There are many books I have reread and I trust many I will reread; but I read none of them constantly, except the apostles and prophets.


----------



## matthewd2013 (May 7, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Matt, two points. One is that reading the Scriptures is not parallel to mysticism, per Hodge's definition that you quoted. Notice that he conceives of mysticism as assuming that divine truth is revealed independently of the outward teaching of God's Word; but that is not opposed to private reading, but rather to an "inward light". If someone says, "I don't need to read the Scripture because God wakes me up at 4:17 a.m. to talk with me," that would be mysticism.


Sorry, I think I must have come across other than expected. I didn't understand Hodge to be opposed to private reading of scripture. I only inferred from Hodge that since the objective truth of scripture is learned through the rational understanding of it and that if you learn the truth of scripture directly from reading it or from reading others who have digested it, that either way you must learn it through rational understanding and the Holy Spirit is not limited to nor prone too applying the objective truth to your soul just because you read it from the pages of scripture. I didn't so much worry about being woken up at 4:17 it is just that I grew up in the type of church that people often say stuff like "this is what I think the passage means" or "this is what the holy spirit was telling me through this passage" and other mystic understandings rather than "this is what God was actually saying in this passage" My Dispensational semi-pelagian background would encourage me to read primarily the scriptures because I can't be nourished on what others have digested. I feel like I have been trying to reject this assertion and wonder if I might be going to far but I do know that reading the naked scriptures is not inherently mystic. 


py3ak said:


> And the second ties right in to that observation. It need not be an either or. Should you read the Psalms instead of the Treasury of David? Why need it be an _instead_? But let me ask, do you read Hodge directly or do you rely on secondary sources? Then again, do you expect to get the benefit of Hodge without any time spent to digest what he says? And so I would say _ad fontes_, and that it is essential that you would meditate on Scripture for yourself (just as, I hope, you wouldn't let someone else chew your own food, even if you let them cook it for you).


Sorry, I don't know Latin, although it is in the top 3 that I want to learn in my life. My goal is to meditate on scripture though my memorizing of it and thinking of my memory verses through the day but the verses that I get for memorizing are from sermons that I read from Edwards or ones that come up while reading John Owens. I don't quite understand why you ask if I read hodge directly or through secondary sources but I read his systematic books while as I rotate through my collection that I have started.



py3ak said:


> More in general, I would ask how anything but a systematic personal reading of the word can guarantee that you are not neglecting some part of what is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness? And I would ask what the attitude of the Psalmist would lead him to do if he had the inestimable privilege of a complete copy of God's word?


I don't think that systematic reading is essential or even sufficient for guaranteeing not neglecting part of... I might even think that biblical (as in biblical theology) and exegetical method might be better for said purpose but all are useful. I guess I kinda feel that I need to put myself through my own form of seminary before I feel capable of properly understanding the scriptures. Right now I'm reading systematic theology books, biblical theology books, sermons and I aim toward starting to read through books of the bible along with commentaries and I really would like to learn greek and hebrew and I just feel that before all that is complete I feel inept (although I still do it, just not much) at reading the scriptures alone. 



py3ak said:


> is there a more straightforward way to arrive at a mastery of it then a consistent use of it, through personal reading and meditation, the use of such helps as one has, and the attendance on the public reading and preaching of God's word?


I guess I would answer that I believe there is a more straightforward way to arrive at its mastery for I have been under teaching of people that read the bible all the time and even have a substantial, if not majority, of it memorized and, upon reflection now that I am no longer semi-pelagian and dispensational, realize that they no more mastered the scriptures than a cook using a samuri sword to trim the fat off chicken. 



py3ak said:


> No doubt this discussion could be drawn out to great length, and various objections could be raised, and on and on. But here are the facts: we all of us have a copy of the Scriptures. We all of us have liberty to read it. We all of us confess that it is God's word written. We confess that this book is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus. The logical next step is that we make a due use of all the ordinary means: those ordinary means include personal study, individual scrutiny, solitary meditation and systematic reading.
> 
> Personally, with regard to the balance, I read the Bible more than any other book, because I am constantly reading the Bible. There are many books I have reread and I trust many I will reread; but I read none of them constantly, except the apostles and prophets.



So do you think that I, a recovering Dispensational semi-pelagian mystic should also follow in the footsteps, at this point in my life, of reading the scriptures more than I read sermons, theological books, commentaries, confessions, catechisms, etc? because right now I would say it is about 1 part scriptures to at least 5 parts other. 

Thanks for the reply, 
Matt


----------



## Davidius (May 7, 2008)

matt.meisberger said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Matt, two points. One is that reading the Scriptures is not parallel to mysticism, per Hodge's definition that you quoted. Notice that he conceives of mysticism as assuming that divine truth is revealed independently of the outward teaching of God's Word; but that is not opposed to private reading, but rather to an "inward light". If someone says, "I don't need to read the Scripture because God wakes me up at 4:17 a.m. to talk with me," that would be mysticism.
> ...







py3ak said:


> is there a more straightforward way to arrive at a mastery of it then a consistent use of it, through personal reading and meditation, the use of such helps as one has, and the attendance on the public reading and preaching of God's word?





Matt said:


> I guess I would answer that I believe there is a more straightforward way to arrive at its mastery for I have been under teaching of people that read the bible all the time and even have a substantial, if not majority, of it memorized and, upon reflection now that I am no longer semi-pelagian and dispensational, realize that they no more mastered the scriptures than a cook using a samuri sword to trim the fat off chicken.



Excellent point, Matt, and I have had the exact same experience. It's ironic that those in my old evanjellyish-charismatic circles who harped on the importance of reading the bible for oneself for X amount of time per day, and those who, without saying it in so many words, made me and many others labor under a heavy burden of what was required of us for correct personal piety, turn out themselves to not know their bibles very well at all. These same people, of course, always quoted Ephesians 4:11 to prove that the office of apostle is still around today, while at the same time asserting that our private scripture reading is the most important part of our Christian life, when the same verse says that it's through these officers that we're to be equipped.


----------



## jwithnell (May 7, 2008)

In my first years of walking with the Lord, I was blessed to have authors like Luther, John Murray, and the Puritans pushed my way. Reading good authors is extremely helpful because it helps you to develop a framework for understanding the scriptures. 

Also, the Lord led me (and I don't use that phrase lightly; looking back, I don't think I'd trust just about anything else that was sold in that bookstore) to some excellent studies that gently led me through several books of the Bible and helped me understand how to interpret scripture with scripture. Some modern examples would include using the Spirit of the Reformation study Bible and series like "The Gospel According to the Old Testament" put out by P&R Publishing.

I find that the real growth comes by seeking God's word directly from the source (the Bible). You will grow in your understanding by reading the authors, but you will grow in maturity by reading the Bible (and will know quickly if someone is saying something in error). 

That said, I'm not sure I'd lump sermons into other writings, assuming that it is good, expository preaching. This was the primary way that the early church had of hearing and understanding God's word. Lately, I've been listening to an excellent series on Isaiah with my Bible open just as if I were listening to a sermon in church. This might give you a half-way-in-between that could be useful as you learn to study God's word.


----------



## matthewd2013 (May 7, 2008)

jwithnell said:


> That said, I'm not sure I'd lump sermons into other writings, assuming that it is good, expository preaching. This was the primary way that the early church had of hearing and understanding God's word. Lately, I've been listening to an excellent series on Isaiah with my Bible open just as if I were listening to a sermon in church. This might give you a half-way-in-between that could be useful as you learn to study God's word.



The sermons that I really enjoy reading are from Edwards. I actually don't read as many sermons as I used to and I keep trying to make the time to read more as I always feel that my heart is changed the most from reading sermons. For example, I read the verse about Noah doing all that God commanded him to do in building the ark and keep on reading. Jonathan Edwards has a sermon on that verse that brought a tear to my eye and I am not the crying type. Sometimes I just wish that the Lord would take me so that I can study the scriptures uninhibited by my sin such as laziness, selfishness, coldheartedness and I wouldn't grow tiresome of reading or studying God. 

I was just wondering jwithnell, why you think that maturity does not come from reading things other than the scripture alone? If you read something with lots of scripture in it and exegetical work on the scriptures, do you think that one does not mature as fast as reading them directly? I kinda felt that I mature the most when "hearing the word preached." The reason for the quotes is that I count reading a sermon as hearing the word preached. 


Thanks, 
Matt


----------



## jwithnell (May 7, 2008)

Matt, that's why I said sermons should perhaps not be lumped in with more general writings. Interesting that you should mention Mr. Edward's sermons because that's where I usually go when I need a major attitude adjustment!

Part of my observations are based upon observations over the years. The folks who are likely to pick up great classic works of the faith are likely to lean toward the intellectual. It is easy to mistake intellectual growth for spiritual maturity. I'm not saying that the two are completely separate by any means; the current anti-intellectualism in the modern church is the devil's playground. Indeed, a RC Ryle's book on Assurance was a major pivotal point in my knowledge AND faith. But some things just take time. I'm convinced one cannot gain instant spiritual maturity just because you can quote great works. Does this make sense?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 7, 2008)

I once knew a Dispensationalist "me and my Bible" person, who would condemn me if I ever cited a Christian author or Confession of Faith, yet he still expected me to listen to his interpretation of Scripture. Now while I do not expect someone to believe a doctrine simply because the WCF or some learned author says so, I do expect them to give the teachers of the past a fair hearing.


----------



## matthewd2013 (May 7, 2008)

jwithnell said:


> Does this make sense?



Makes sense. I'm the first one to admit that I am not spiritually mature and in fact I'm less sanctified than lots of people that are wrong on almost all theological points (such as one of my grandmas). I have a long way to go in pulling the roots of sin that are interwoven into all actions and affections that I have. I don't mean that I have a long way to go in relation to time because we all do this till we die, I just mean that I'm still hacking away at big roots, especially pride since intellectual stuff comes relatively easy for me I find that it is hard not to think I'm superior because of this. Do most feel that they are superior for the ways in which God has gifted them, for example, I struggle with kindness and gentleness and similar fruits so do people that are more naturally inclined toward spiritual kindness and gentleness struggle with thinking they are superior or is it something that is more unique to people that are gifted in intellectual understanding to feel that their gift is superior even though they know it to not be the case?  oops.

Matt

Oh and I think that I will start working through books of the bible sooner than later with a commentary in front of me and knees on the floor (metaphorically). Any body recommend a book not for doctrinal purposes but rather for edification, particularly with humility and kindness?


----------



## py3ak (May 7, 2008)

Matt, thanks for your reply. I didn't mean to imply that you thought private reading was mystical --just clarifying since you brought the two points together (understandably so, since there are many people who do read mystically, rather than rationally). _Ad fontes_, as Davidius could have told you, simply means "to the source".

The question about reading Hodge vs. reading someone on Hodge was groundwork for another question. If you want to learn what Hodge (or Calvin or Aquinas or whomever) said, do you read them or do you read a secondary source? In certain cases (such as a book written in a language you don't know, opaque language, or great prolificness) secondary sources may be the best we can do: but God has given us what is really a brief book, translated into our own language, with the assurance that it really is substantially clear. So when we want to know what God says, the first stop is the Bible. That's where it is contained without any admixture of error, in the form God Himself inspired.

Now another thing the Scripture makes quite clear is that it is to be the touchstone (Isaiah 8:20, Acts 17:11) of right thinking. Without an increasing familiarity with Scripture, you will be unable to test Edwards or Vos or whomever (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

As far as the mechanics of increasing comprehension, I am not sure if I made myself altogether clear before. When you say that systematic reading doesn't guarantee that you don't neglect a part of Scripture, in one sense that's quite true: but it does make sure that you don't neglect it _in your reading_. You give yourself at least the opportunity to understand not only Hebrews but also Habakkuk, Chronicles as well as Corinthians. Barring a commentary on the whole Bible, it would be hard to get that kind of systematic exposure through secondary sources.

The unfortunate thing about these kinds of discussions is that they tend to give the impression that there are two polarized camps: "Me and my Bible" on the one hand and "the Bible is the domain of experts" on the other. Within the Reformed world it is to be hoped that there very few of either tribe (may their numbers constantly decrease). My contention is that every Christian ought to love the word of God (1 Peter 2:2), and therefore make a due use of the ordinary means which he has available to him. I contend as well that private reading is one of those ordinary means, and that _no other means will take the place of individual meditation._ I hold that God blesses us in the use of each of the ordinary means, and that no one of them can be elevated above another. 

The meaning of Scripture is objective: but just because it is objective, you shouldn't be afraid to approach the Bible on your own account (though it behooves us all to be afraid lest we arrogantly distort that word). Sure, some people have been exposing themselves to Scripture and yet have failed to grasp large portions of it: you also have people writing essays on _Pantheism in Handel's Messiah_; humans are stupid. If you are going to read through Scripture with a commentary, I doubt that you could do any better than to take Matthew Henry's. And yes, I would say that you, from your background, need alongside of a diet of solid teaching a solid portion of Scripture. But I think you may have mis-taken what I said of myself: my own rule has me reading Scripture more than any other book _over the course of my lifetime_, not necessarily on any given day. But if a busy day comes along where I cannot read as I choose, the Scripture is the last thing to be dropped, according to the rule.


----------



## moral necessity (May 7, 2008)

Personally, I've found myself go through phases. For seasons of time, I may really get into a collection of Calvin's sermons. And then, something from them will trigger a certain theological question, which will take me to Owen or Luther for their thoughts on it. From there, I may branch off into a historical study of that certain time period. And then other seasons come along where I just want to read scripture, and see if the theology I just waded through fits with the word of God. From there, the cycle seems to begin on a different course, where scripture is the main thrust of my reading, until I come across certain passages or concepts that I don't grasp too well, which takes me back to researching Edwards or Greek/Hebrew studies, etc..., and so the seasons come and go in my private studies.

So, although I may not take a strict regimine sort of approach to my private spiritual exercises, I find that this approach suits my personality fairly well, and keeps me driven towards some sort of spiritual food that is centered around Christ and his word nearly all the time. Yet, on top of all of this, is the strict diet of Sunday corporate worship and the feeding on the word and the partaking of the sacraments, which is of the utmost importance not to neglect, as Paul very strongly affirms.

Blessings!


----------



## Davidius (May 8, 2008)

jwithnell said:


> Matt, that's why I said sermons should perhaps not be lumped in with more general writings. Interesting that you should mention Mr. Edward's sermons because that's where I usually go when I need a major attitude adjustment!



So why shouldn't sermons be lumped in with general writings? They're pretty much the same thing, though one is spoken and the other written on paper. The good ones are saturated with scripture. 

I guess I'm lost once again in what appears to be the modern Reformed tradition's inability to make up its mind with regard to assigning a priority to personal or corporate piety. Are the "attitude adjustments" you get from reading Edwards less valid or beneficial because you read a scripture-saturated treatise instead of reading the same black squiggly ink marks in another book? 

If growth can't come without serious private bible study, why does the bible put so much emphasis on corporate teaching? Why are we admonished to "pray without ceasing" but not to "read our bibles everyday" if the latter is indispensable for our sanctification? 



> *Part of my observations are based upon observations* over the years.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 8, 2008)

If I recall correctly, Spurgeon said the Bible is a good commentary on the commentaries.


----------



## py3ak (May 9, 2008)

Davidius said:


> I guess I'm lost once again in what appears to be the modern Reformed tradition's inability to make up its mind with regard to assigning a priority to personal or corporate piety. Are the "attitude adjustments" you get from reading Edwards less valid or beneficial because you read a scripture-saturated treatise instead of reading the same black squiggly ink marks in another book?
> 
> If growth can't come without serious private bible study, why does the bible put so much emphasis on corporate teaching? Why are we admonished to "pray without ceasing" but not to "read our bibles everyday" if the latter is indispensable for our sanctification?



David, I didn't see this post until today.

As far as not assigning a priority to personal or corporate piety, I don't know that in every case it is indecision: I suspect in many cases it may actually be a very strong decision. We don't say that the personal is more important than the corporate or vice versa because in ordinary cases (e.g., not providentially hindered) they are equally important. Do you think that the Three Persons are more important than the One Essence?

As far as a command, OK, while we don't have "read your Bible everyday" anymore than we have "baptize your infants" or "allow women to partake of communion" the way we have "pray without ceasing", we do have an excellent example in Acts 17:11, where ordinary people hearing the apostolic preaching searched the Scriptures _daily_. We are also commanded to take the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God (Ephesians 6:17); we are commanded to let the word of Christ dwell in us richly in all wisdom (Colossians 3:16). Every believer is instructed to _prove all things_ and of course the standard by which we judge is God's word (1 Thessalonians 5:21, Isaiah 8:20). I'm sure you can do the math from there.

Those who cannot read or do not have a Bible must remember as they can from the reading and preaching; but we who can read and who do have a Bible need to beware lest we despise the great treasure of God's word written in its entirety for its better preservation and propagation (WCF I.1).


----------



## Davidius (May 11, 2008)

I just got back from the mountains today. Thanks for giving me more to think about, Ruben.


----------

