Biyernes, Agosto 30, 2024

Private Judgment (J. C. Ryle, 1816 -1900)

 

1 Thessalonians 5:21

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”


There were three great doctrines or principles which won the battle of the Protestant Reformation. These three were:

(1) the sufficiency and supremacy of Holy Scripture,

(2) the right of private judgment, and

(3) justification by faith only, without the deeds of the law.

These three principles were the keys of the whole controversy between the Reformers and the Church of Rome. If we keep firm hold of them when we argue with a Roman Catholic, our position is unassailable — no weapon that the Church of Rome can forge against us will prosper. If we give up any one of them, our cause is lost. Like Samson, with his hair shorn — our strength is gone. Like the Spartans, betrayed at Thermopylae — we are outflanked and surrounded. We cannot maintain our ground. Resistance is useless. Sooner or later we shall have to lay down our arms, and surrender at discretion.

Let us carefully remember this. The Roman Catholic controversy is upon us once more. We must put on the old armor, if we would not have our faith overthrown. The sufficiency of Holy Scripture — the right of private judgment — justification by faith only — these are the three great principles to which we must always cling. Let us grasp them firmly, and never let them go.

One of the three great principles to which I have referred, appears to me to stand forth in the verse of Scripture which heads this paper. I mean the right of private judgment. I wish to say something about that principle. The Holy Spirit, by the mouth of Paul, says to us, "Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good." In these words, we have two great truths:

I. The right, duty, and necessity of private judgment: "Prove all things."

II. The duty and necessity of keeping firm hold upon truth: "Hold fast that which is good."

In this paper, I propose to dwell a little on both these points.
 

I. Let me speak first, of the right, duty, and necessity of private judgment. "Prove all things."

When I say the right of private judgment, I mean that every individual Christian has a right to judge for himself by the Word of God, whether that which is put before him as religious truth, is God's truth, or is not.

When I say the duty of private judgment, I mean that God requires every Christian man to use the right of which I have just spoken — to compare man's words and man's writings with God's revelation, and to make sure that he is not deluded and taken in by false teaching.

And when I say the necessity of private judgment, I mean this — that it is absolutely needful for every Christian who loves his soul and would not be deceived — to exercise the right, and discharge the duty to which I have referred; seeing that experience shows that the neglect of private judgment has always been the cause of immense evils in the Church of Christ.

Now, the Apostle Paul urges all these three points upon our notice when he uses those remarkable words, "Prove all things." I ask particular attention to that expression. In every point of view it is most weighty and instructive.

Here, we must remember, the Apostle Paul is writing to the Thessalonians — to a Church which he himself hail founded. Here is an inspired Apostle writing to young inexperienced Christians — writing to the whole professing Church in a certain city, containing laity as well as clergy — writing, too, with especial reference to matters of doctrine and preaching, as we know by the verse preceding the text: "Despise not prophesyings."

And yet mark what he says, "Prove all things." He does not say, "Whatever Apostles — whatever evangelists, pastors, and teachers — whatever your Bishops — whatever your ministers tell you is truth, that you are to believe." No! he says, "Prove all things." He does not say, "Whatever the universal Church pronounces true, that you are to hold." No! he says, "Prove all things."

The principle laid down is this: "Prove all things by the Word of God — all ministers, all teaching, all preaching, all doctrines, all sermons, all writings, all opinions, all practices — prove all by the Word of God.

Measure all by the measure of the Bible.

Compare all with the standard of the Bible.

Weigh all in the balances of the Bible.

Examine all by the light of the Bible.

Test all in the crucible of the Bible.

That which can abide the fire of the Bible — receive, hold, believe, and obey. That which cannot abide the fire of the Bible — reject, refuse, repudiate, and cast away."

This is private judgment. This is the right we are to exercise if we love our souls. We are not to believe things in religion merely because they are said by Popes or Cardinals — by Bishops or Priests — by Presbyters or Deacons — by Churches, Councils, or Synods — by Fathers, Puritans, or Reformers. We are not to argue, "Such and such things must be true — because these men say so." We are not to do so. We are to prove all things by the Word of God.

Now, I know such doctrine sounds startling in some men's ears. But I write it down advisedly, and believe it cannot be disproved. I would be sorry to encourage any man in ignorant presumption or ignorant contempt. I pity the man who seldom reads his Bible, and yet sets himself up to pick holes in his minister's sermons. I pity the man who knows nothing but a few texts in the New Testament, and yet undertakes to settle questions in divinity which have puzzled God's wisest children. But still I hold with Bishop Thomas Bilson (1575), that "all hearers have both liberty to discern and a charge to beware of seducers — and woe to them that do it not." And I say with Bishop Davenant (1627), "We are not to believe all who undertake to teach in the Church — but must take care and weigh with serious examination, whether their doctrine is sound or not."

"The people of God are called to try the truth, to judge between good and evil, between light and darkness. God has made them the promise of His Spirit, and has left unto them His Word. They of Berea, when they heard the preaching of Paul, searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so as he taught them, and many of them believed. So do you — give heed to instruction, and yet receive not all things without proof and trial that they are not contrary to the wholesome doctrine of the Word of God." (Bishop Jewell)

Some men I know, refuse to believe this doctrine of private judgment — but I assert confidently that it is continually taught in the Word of God.

This is the principle laid down by the prophet Isaiah, "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn." (Isaiah 8:20) His words were written, we should remember, at a time when God was more immediately King over His Church, and had more direct communication with it than He has now. They were written at a time when there were men upon earth who had express revelations from God.

Yet what does Isaiah say? "When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter — should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn!" If this is not private judgment, what is?

This, again, is the principle laid down by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. The Head of the Church says there, "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You shall know them by their fruit." (Matthew 7:15) How is it possible that men shall know these false prophets, except they exercise their private judgment as to what their fruits are?

This is the practice we find commended in the Bereans, in the Acts of the Apostles. They did not take the Apostle Paul's word for granted, when he came to preach to them. We are told, that they "searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so," and "therefore" it is said, "many of them believed." (Acts 17:11-12) What was this again but private judgment?

This is the spirit of the advice given in 1 Corinthians 10:15, "I speak as unto wise men — you judge what I say." And in Colossians 2:18, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit." And in 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God." And in 2 John verse 10, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him."

If these passages do not recommend the use of private judgment, I do not know what words mean. To my mind, they seem to say to every individual Christian, "Prove all things!" Whatever men may say against private judgment, we may be sure it cannot be neglected without immense danger to the soul. We may not like it — but we never know what we may come to if we refuse to use it. No man can say into what depths of false doctrine we may be drawn, if we will not do what God requires of us, and "prove all things."

Suppose that, in fear of private judgment, we resolve to believe whatever the Church believes. Where is our security against error? The Church is not infallible. There was a time when almost the whole of Christendom embraced the Arian heresy, and did not acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ to be equal with the Father in all things. There was a time, before the Reformation, when the darkness over the face of Europe was a darkness that might be felt.

The General Councils of the Church are not infallible. When the whole Church is gathered together in a General Council, what does our twenty-first Article? "They may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Therefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be proven that they be taken out of Holy Scripture."

The particular branches of the Church are not infallible. Any one of them may err. Many of them have fallen foully, or have been swept away. Where is the Church of Ephesus at this day? Where is the Church of Sardis at the present time? Where is Augustine's Church of Hippo in Africa? Where is Cyprian's Church of Carthage? They are all gone! Not a vestige of any of them is left! Shall we then be content to err — merely because the Church errs? Will our company be any excuse for our error? Will our erring in company with the Church remove our responsibility for our own souls? Surely it is a thousand times better for a man to stand alone and be saved — than to err in company with the Church, and be lost! It is better to "prove all things" — and go to Heaven; than to say, "I dare not think for myself" — and go to Hell!

But suppose that, to cut matters short, we resolve to believe whatever our minister believes. Once more I ask — where is our security against error? Ministers are not infallible, any more than Churches. All of them have not the Spirit of God. The very best of them are only men. Call them Bishops, Priests, Deacons, or whatever names you please — they are all earthen vessels. I speak not merely of Popes, who have promulgated awful superstitions, and led abominable lives. I would rather point to the very best of Protestants and say, "Beware of looking upon them as infallible — beware of thinking of any man (whoever that man may be) — that he cannot err." Luther held consubstantiation — that was a mighty error. Calvin, the Geneva Reformer, advised the burning of Servetus — that was a mighty error. Cranmer and Ridley urged the putting of Hooper into prison because of some trifling dispute about vestments — that was a mighty error. Whitgift persecuted the Puritans — that was a mighty error. Wesley and Toplady in the last century quarreled fiercely about Calvinism — that was a mighty error.

All these things are warnings, if we will only take them. All say, "Cease from trusting in man!" All show us that if a man's religion hangs on ministers, whoever they may be, and not on the Word of God — it hangs on a broken reed. Let us never make our ministers into Popes. Let us follow them so far as they follow Christ — but not a hair's breadth further. Let us believe whatever they can show us out of the Bible, but not a single word more. If we neglect the duty of private judgment, we may find, to our cost, the truth of what Whitby says: "The best of overseers do sometimes make oversights." We may live to experience the truth of what the Lord said about the Pharisees: "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." (Matthew 15:14) We may be very sure no man is safe against error, unless he acts on Paul's injunction — unless he "proves all things" by the Word of God.

I have said that it is impossible to overrate the evils that may arise from neglecting to exercise private judgment. I will go further, and say that it is impossible to overrate the blessings which private judgment has conferred both on the world and on the Church.

I ask my readers, then, to remember that the greatest discoveries in science and in philosophy, beyond all controversy, have arisen from the use of private judgment. To this we owe the discovery of Galileo, that the earth went round the sun, and not the sun round the earth. To this, we owe Columbus' discovery of the continent of America. To this we owe Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood. To this we owe Jenner's discovery of vaccination. To this we owe the printing press, the steam engine, the power loom, the electric telegraph, railways, and gas. For all these discoveries we are indebted to men who dared to "think for themselves." They were not content with the beaten path of those who had gone before. They were not satisfied with taking for granted that what their fathers believed must be true. They made experiments for themselves. They brought old-established theories to the proof — and found that they were worthless. They proclaimed new systems, and invited men to examine them, and test their truth. They bore storms of obloquy and ridicule unmoved. They heard the clamor of prejudiced lovers of old traditions without flinching. And they prospered and succeeded in what they did. We see it now. And we who live in the nineteenth century are reaping the fruit of their use of private judgment.

And just as it has been in science, so also it has been in the history of the Christian religion. The martyrs who stood alone in their day, and shed that blood which has been the seed of Christ's Gospel throughout the world — the Reformers, who, one after another, rose up in their might to enter the lists with the Church of Rome — all did what they did, suffered what they suffered, proclaimed what they proclaimed — simply because they exercised their private judgment about what was Christ's truth.

Private judgment made the Vallenses, the Albigenses, and the Lollards, count not their lives dear to them, rather than believe the doctrines of the Church of Rome.

Private judgment made Wickliffe search the Bible in our own land, denounce the Romish friars, and all their impostures, translate the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue, and become "the morning star" of the Reformation.

Private judgment made Luther examine Tetzel's abominable system of indulgences by the light of the Word. Private judgment led him on, step by step, from one thing to another, guided by the same light, until at length the gulf between him and Rome was a gulf that could not be passed, and the Pope's power in Germany was completely broken.

Private judgment made our own English Reformers examine for themselves, and inquire for themselves, as to the true nature of that corrupt system under which they had been born and brought up. Private judgment made them cast off the abominations of Popery, and circulate the Bible among the laity. Private judgment made them draw from the Bible our Articles, compile our Prayer-book, and constitute the Church of England as it is. They broke the fetters of tradition, and dared to think for themselves. They refused to take for granted Rome's pretensions and assertions. They examined them all by the Bible — and because they would not abide the examination, they broke with Rome altogether.

All the blessings of Protestantism in England, all that we are enjoying at this very day — we owe to the right exercise of private judgment. Surely if we do not honor private judgment, we are thankless and ungrateful indeed!

Let us not be moved by the common argument, that the right of private judgment is liable to be abused — that private judgment has done great harm, and should be avoided as a dangerous thing. Never was there a more miserable argument! Never was there one which, when thrashed, proves so full of chaff!

Private judgment has been abused! I would like the objector to tell me what good gift of God has not been abused? What high principle can be named that has not been employed for the very worst of purposes?

Strength may become tyranny — when it is employed by the stronger to coerce the weaker; yet strength is a blessing when properly employed.

Liberty may become licentiousness — when every man does that which is right in his own eyes, without regarding the rights and feelings of others; yet liberty, rightly used, is a mighty blessing.

Because many things may be used improperly — are we therefore to give them up altogether? Because opium is used improperly by some — is it not to be used as a medicine on any occasion at all? Because money may be used improperly — is all money to be cast into the sea? You cannot have good in this world, without evil. You cannot have private judgment without some abusing it, and turning it to bad account.

But private judgment, people say, has done more harm than good! What harm has private judgment done, I would like to know, in matters of religion — compared to the harm that has been done by the neglect of it? Some are fond of telling us that among Protestants who allow private judgment, there are divisions, and that in the Church of Rome, where private judgment is forbidden, there are no divisions. I might easily show such objectors that Romish unity is far more seeming than real. Bishop Hall, in his book called "The Peace of Rome," numbers up no less than three hundred differences of opinion existing in the Romish Church.

I might easily show that the divisions of Protestants are exceedingly exaggerated, and that most of them are upon points of minor importance. I might show that, with all the "varieties of Protestantism," as men call them, there is still a vast amount of fundamental unity and substantial agreement among Protestants. No man can read the "Harmony of Protestant Confessions" without seeing that.

But grant for a moment that private judgment has led to divisions, and brought about varieties. I say that these divisions and varieties are but a drop of water when compared with the torrent of abominations that have arisen from the Church of Rome's practice of disallowing private judgment altogether! Place the evils in two scales — the evils that have arisen from private judgment, and those that have arisen from no man being allowed to think for himself. Weigh the evils one against another, and I have no doubt as to which will be the greatest.

Give me Protestant divisions, certainly — rather than Popish unity, with the fruit that it brings forth! Give me Protestant variations — rather than Romish ignorance, Romish superstition, Romish darkness, and Romish idolatry. Let the two systems be tried by their fruits — the system that says, "Prove all things", and the system that says, "Dare to have no opinion of your own" — let them be tried by their fruits in the hearts, in the intellects, in the lives, in all the ways of men — and I have no doubt as to the result.

In any case, let us not be moved by the specious argument, that it is humility to disallow private judgment and to have no opinion of our own, that it is the part of a true Christian not to think for himself!

I tell men boldly that such humility is a false humility — a humility that does not deserve that blessed name. Call it rather laziness, idleness, and sloth. It makes a man strip himself of all his responsibility, and throw the whole burden of his soul into the hands of the minister and the Church. It gives a man a mere vicarious religion, a religion by which he places his conscience and all his spiritual concerns under the care of others. He need not trouble himself! He need no longer think for himself! He has embarked in a safe ship, and placed his soul under a safe pilot, and will get to Heaven!

Oh, let us beware of supposing that this deserves the name of humility! It is refusing to exercise the gift that God has given us. It is refusing to employ the sword of the Spirit which God has forged for the use of our hand. Blessed be God, our forefathers did not act upon such principles! Had they done so, we would never have had the Reformation. Had they done so, we might have been bowing down to the image of the Virgin Mary at this moment, or praying to the departed saints, or having a service performed in Latin. From such humility, may the good Lord ever deliver us!

As long as we live, let us resolve that we will read for ourselves, think for ourselves, judge of the Bible for ourselves, in the great matters of our souls. Let us dare to have an opinion of our own. Let us never be ashamed of saying, "I think that this is right, because I find it in the Bible" and "I think that this is wrong, because I do not find it in the Bible." "Let us prove all things," and prove them by the Word of God.

As long as we live, let us beware of the blindfold system, which many commend in the present day — the system of following a leader, and having no opinion of our own — the system which practically says, "Only keep to your Church, only receive the Sacraments, only believe what the ordained ministers who are set over you tell you — and then all shall be well." I warn men that this will not do. If we are content with this kind of religion, we are imperiling our immortal souls. Let the Bible, and not any Church upon earth, or any minister upon earth, be our rule of faith. "Prove all things" by the Word of God.

Above all, as long as we live, let us habitually look forward to the great day of judgment. Let us think of the solemn account which every one of us will have to give in that day before the judgment-seat of Christ. We shall not be judged by Churches. We shall not be judged by whole congregations. We shall be judged individually, each by himself. What shall it profit us in that day to say, "Lord, Lord, I believed everything the Church told me! I received and believed everything ordained ministers set before me. I thought that whatever the Church and the ministers said must be right."

What shall it profit us to say this, if we have held some deadly error? Surely, the voice of Him who sits upon the throne will reply, "You had the Scriptures. You had a book plain and easy to him who will read it and search it in a child-like spirit. Why did you not use the Word of God when it was given to you? You had a reasonable soul given you to understand that Bible. Why did you not 'Prove all things,' and thus keep clear of error?" If we refuse to exercise our private judgment — then let us think of that solemn day, and beware.
 

II. And now let me speak of the duty and necessity of keeping firm hold upon God's truth.

The words of the Apostle on this subject are pithy and forcible. "Hold fast", he says, "that which is good." It is as if he said to us, "When you have found the truth for yourself, and when you are satisfied that it is Christ's truth — that truth which the Scriptures set forth — then get a firm hold upon it, grasp it, keep it in your heart, never let it go."

Paul speaks as one who knew what the hearts of all Christians are. He knew that our grasp of the gospel, at our best, is very cold — that our love soon waxes feeble — that our faith soon wavers — that our zeal soon flags — that familiarity with Christ's truth often brings with it a species of contempt — that, like Israel, we are apt to be discouraged by the length of our journey — and, like Peter, ready to sleep one moment and fight the next — but, like Peter, we are not ready to "watch and pray." All this Paul remembered, and, like a faithful watchman, he cries by the Holy Spirit, "Hold fast that which is good!"

He speaks as if he foresaw by the Spirit that the good tidings of the Gospel would soon be corrupted, spoiled, and plucked away from the Church at Thessalonica. He speaks as one who foresaw that Satan and all his agents would labor hard to cast down Christ's truth. He writes as though he would forewarn men of this danger, and he cries, "Hold fast that which is good."

The advice is always needed — needed as long as the world stands. There is a tendency to decay in the very best of human institutions. The best visible Church of Christ is not free from a liability to degenerate. It is made up of fallible men. There is always in it a tendency to leave its first love. We see the leaven of evil creeping into many a Church, even in the Apostle's time. There were evils in the Corinthian Church, evils in the Ephesian Church, evils in the Galatian Church. All these things are meant to be beacons in these latter times. All show the great necessity laid upon the Church to remember the Apostle's words: "Hold fast that which is good."

Many Churches of Christ since then, have fallen away for the lack of remembering this principle. Their ministers and members forgot that Satan is always laboring to bring in false doctrine. They forgot that he can transform himself into an angel of light; that he can make darkness appear to be light — and light appear to be darkness; truth appear to be falsehood — and falsehood appear to be truth. If he cannot destroy Christianity, he ever tries to spoil it. If he cannot prevent the form of godliness, he endeavors to rob Churches of the power. No Church is ever safe that forgets these things, and does not bear in mind the Apostle's injunction, "Hold fast that which is good."

If ever there was a time in the world when Churches were put upon their trial, whether they would hold fast the truth or not — that time is the present time, and those Churches are the Protestant Churches of our own land. Popery, that old enemy of our nation, is coming in upon us in this day like a flood. We are assaulted by open enemies without, and betrayed continually by false friends within. The number of Roman Catholic churches, and chapels, and schools, and convents and monasteries, is continually increasing around us. Month after month brings tidings of some new defection from the ranks of the Church of England, to the ranks of the Church of Rome. Already the clergy of the Church of Rome are using great swelling words about things to come, and boasting that, sooner or later, England shall once more be brought back to the orbit of the Catholic church. Surely now or never, we ought all of us to awake, and "Hold fast that which is good."

Perhaps we supposed, some of us, in our blindness, that the power of the Church of Rome was ended. We dreamed, in our folly, that the Reformation had ended the Popish controversy, and that if Romanism did survive, Romanism was altogether changed. If we did think so, we have lived to learn that we made a most grievous mistake. Rome never changes. It is her boast that she is always the same. The snake was not killed — he was wounded at the time of the Reformation, but was not destroyed. The Romish Antichrist is not dead. He was cast down for a little season, like the fabled giant buried under Etna — but his deadly wound is healed, the grave is opening once more, and Antichrist is coming forth. The unclean spirit of Popery is not laid in his own place. Rather he seems to say, "My house in England is now swept and garnished for me — let me return to the place from whence I came forth."

And the question is now, whether we are going to abide quietly, sit still, and fold our hands, and do nothing to resist the assault. Are we really men of understanding of the times? Do we know the day of our visitation? Surely this is a crisis in the history of our Churches and of our land. It is a time which will soon prove whether we know the value of our privileges, or whether, like Amalek, "the first of the nations," our "latter end shall be that we perish forever." It is a time which will soon prove whether we intend to allow our candlestick to be removed — or to repent, and do our first works, lest any man should take our crown.

If we love the open Bible — if we love the preaching of the gospel — if we love the privilege of reading that Bible, no man hindering us; and the opportunity of hearing that Gospel, no man forbidding us — if we love civil liberty — if we love religious liberty — if these things are precious to our souls, we must make up our minds to "hold fast," lest by and by we lose all.

If we mean to "hold fast" — then every parish, every congregation, every Christian man, and every Christian woman, must do their part in contending for the truth. Each one of us should work, and pray, and labor as if the preservation of the pure Gospel depended upon himself or herself, and upon no one else at all. We must all work. Every living soul has a sphere of influence. Let him see to it that he fills it. Every living soul can throw some weight into the scale of the Gospel. Let him see to it that he casts it in. Let every one know his own individual responsibility in this matter; and all, by God's help, will be well.

If we would "hold fast" that which is good, we must never tolerate or countenance any doctrine which is not the pure doctrine of Christ's gospel. There is a hatred which is downright charity — that is, the hatred of erroneous doctrine. There is an intolerance which is downright praiseworthy — that is, the intolerance of false teaching in the pulpit. Who would ever think of tolerating a little poison given to him day by day? If men come among us who do not preach "all the counsel of God," who do not preach of Christ, and sin, and holiness, of ruin, and redemption, and regeneration, and do not preach of these things in a Scriptural way — then we ought to cease to hear them. We ought to act upon the injunction given by the Holy Spirit in the old Testament: "Cease, my son, to hear the instruction which causes to err from the words of knowledge." (Proverbs 19:27) We ought to carry out the spirit shown by the Apostle Paul, in Galatians 1:8: "Though we, or an angel from Heaven preach any other doctrine unto you than that which we have preached — then let him be accursed."

If we can bear to hear Christ's truth mangled or adulterated — and can see no harm in listening to that which is another Gospel — and can sit at ease while sham Christianity is poured into our ears — and can go home comfortably afterwards, and not burn with holy indignation — if this is the case, there is little chance of our ever doing much to resist Rome. If we are content to hear Jesus Christ not put in His rightful place, we are not men and women who are likely to do Christ much service, or fight a good fight on His side. He who is not zealous against error — is not likely to be zealous for truth.

If we would hold fast the truth, we must be ready to unite with all who hold the truth, and love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. We must be ready to lay aside all minor questions as things of subordinate importance. Establishment or no Establishment, Liturgy or no Liturgy, surplice or no surplice, Bishops or Presbyters — all these points of difference, however important they may be in their place and in their proportion — all ought to be regarded as subordinate questions. I ask no man to give up his private opinions about them. I wish no man to do violence to his conscience. All I say is, that these questions are wood, hay, and stubble — when the very foundations of the faith are in danger! The Philistines are upon us. Can we make common cause against them — or can we not? This is the one point for our consideration. Surely it is not right to say that we expect to spend eternity with men in Heaven — and yet cannot work for a few years with them in this world. It is nonsense to talk of alliance and union — if there is to be no cooperation. The presence of a common foe ought to sink minor differences. We must hold together, if we mean to "hold fast that which is good."

Some men may say, "This is very troublesome." Some may say, "Why not sit still and be quiet?" Some may say, "Oh, that horrid controversy! What need is there for all this trouble? Why should we care so much about these points of difference?" I ask, what good thing was ever gotten, or ever kept, without trouble? Gold does not lie in English corn-fields — but at the bottom of Californian rivers, and Australian quartz reefs. Pearls do not grow on English hedges — but deep down in Indian seas.

Difficulties are never overcome without struggles.

Mountains are seldom climbed without fatigue.

Oceans are not crossed without tossings on the waves.

Peace is seldom obtained without war.

And Christ's truth is seldom made a nation's property, and kept a nation's property, without pains, without struggles, and without trouble.

Let the man who talks of "trouble" tell us where we would be at this day, if our forefathers had not taken some trouble? Where would be the gospel in England, if martyrs had not given their bodies to be burned? Who shall estimate our debt to Cranmer, Latimer, Hooper, Ridley and Taylor, and their brethren? They "held fast that which is good." They would not give up one jot of Christ's truth. They counted not their lives dear for the Gospel's sake. They labored and travailed, and we have entered into their labors. Shame upon us, if we will not take a little trouble to keep with us what they so nobly won! Trouble or no trouble — pains or no pains — controversy or no controversy — one thing is very sure — that nothing but Christ's gospel will ever do good to our own souls. Nothing else will maintain our Churches. Nothing else will ever bring down God's blessing upon our land. If, therefore, we love our own souls, or if we love our country's prosperity, or if we love to keep our Churches standing — then we must remember the Apostle's words, and "hold fast" firmly the gospel, and refuse to let it go.

I have set forth in plain language two things:
One, the right, the duty, and necessity of private judgment.
The other is the duty and necessity of keeping firm hold upon truth.
 

It only remains to APPLY these things to the individual consciences of my readers, by a few concluding words.

(1) For one thing, if it is our duty to "prove all things" — then let me beseech and exhort all English Churchmen to arm themselves with a thorough knowledge of the written Word of God. Let us read our Bibles regularly, and become familiar with their contents. Let us prove all religious teaching, when it is brought before us, by the Bible. A little knowledge of the Bible will not suffice. A man must know his Bible well if he is to test religion by it, and he must read it regularly if he would know it well.

There is no royal road to a knowledge of the Bible. There must be patient, daily, systematic reading of the Book — or the Book will not be known. As one said quaintly, but most truly, "Justification may be by faith — but a knowledge of the Bible comes only by works."

The devil can quote Scripture. He could go to our Lord and quote a text when he wished to tempt Him. A man must be able to say, when he hears Scripture falsely quoted, perverted, and misapplied, "It is written again!" lest he be deceived. Let a man neglect his Bible, and I see nothing to prevent his becoming a Roman Catholic, an Arian, a Socinian, a Jew, or a Turk, if a plausible advocate of any of these false systems shall happen to meet him.

(2) For another thing, if it is right to "prove all things" — then let us take special care to try every Roman Catholic doctrine, by whoever put forward, by the written Word of God. Let us believe nothing, however speciously advanced — believe nothing, with whatever weight of authority brought forward — believe nothing, though supported by all the Fathers — believe nothing, unless it can be proved to us out of the Scripture. The Bible alone is infallible. That alone is light. That alone is God's measure of truth and falsehood. "Let God be true, and every man a liar."

The New Zealanders' answer to the Romish priests, when they first went among them, was an answer never to be forgotten. They heard these priests urge upon them the worship of the Virgin Mary. They heard them recommend prayer to the dead saints, the use of images, the mass, and the confessional. They heard them speak of the authority of the Church of Rome, the supremacy of the Pope, the antiquity of the Romish Church. They knew the Bible, and heard all this calmly, and gave one simple but memorable answer: "It cannot be true, because it is not in the Bible."

All the learning in the world could never have supplied a better answer than that. Latimer, or Knox, or Owen, could never have made a more crushing reply. Let this be our rule when we are attacked by Romanists, or semi-Romanists; let us hold fast the sword of the Spirit, and say, in reply to all their arguments, "It cannot be true, because it is not in the Bible."

(3) Last of all, if it is right to "hold fast that which is true" — then let us make sure that we have each laid hold personally upon Christ's truth for ourselves. It will not save us to know all controversies, and to be able to detect everything which is false. Head knowledge will never bring us to Heaven. It will not save us to be able to argue and reason with Roman Catholics, or to detect the errors of Popes' Bulls, or Pastoral Letters. Let us see that we each lay hold upon Jesus Christ for ourselves, by our own personal faith. Let us see to it that we each flee for refuge, and lay hold upon the hope set before us in His glorious Gospel. Let us do this, and all shall be well with us, whatever else may go ill. Let us do this, and then all things are our's. The Church may fail. The State may go to ruin. The foundations of all establishments may be shaken. The enemies of truth may for a season prevail. But as for us — all shall be well. We shall have in this world peace, and in the world which is to come, life everlasting; for we shall have Christ, and having Him, we have all.

This is real "good," lasting good, good in sickness, good in health, good in life, good in death, good in time, and good in eternity. All other things are but uncertain. They all wear out. They fade. They droop. They wither. They decay. The longer we have them — the more worthless we find them; and the more satisfied we become that everything here below is "vanity and vexation of spirit." But as for hope in Christ, that is always good. The longer we use it, the better it seems. The more we wear it in our hearts, the brighter it will look. It is good when we first have it. It is better far when we grow older. It is better still in the day of trial, and the hour of death. And it will prove best of all in the day of judgment.

https://gracegems.org/23/private_judgment.htm

Scripture: The Only Rule of Faith and Life (Thomas Boston, 1676 -1732)

 

Doctrine II. “The scriptures are the rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy God.

Here I shall only give the properties of this rule.

1. Scripture is Clear.

1. It is a perspicuous or clear rule. For though all things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

(1) With respect to all things necessary to salvation, whether for faith or practice, it cannot be denied, but there are portions of the scripture very obscure, which possibly are not rightly interpreted even to this day; but in such things as are necessary to salvation, they are clear. And in this respect it hath been said, that the scriptures are a depth wherein a lamb may wade, and an elephant may swim.

(2) Though some things, the faith of which is necessary to salvation, be high and incomprehensible mysteries, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, of the incarnation of the Son of God, etc. yet the way of propounding them is clear.

(3) It may be that what is truly necessary unto salvation may be very obscurely laid down in some place of scripture; yet in some other place we shall find the same thing clearly propounded:

(4) And that so as not only the learned, but even the unlearned, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them; which you must carefully remember is meant here of believing persons, who have the inward illumination of the Spirit, removing their own natural darkness: for if ye shall understand it of unbelievers, it contradicts what we have laid down above, relating to the necessity of spiritual illumination. And so the sense is, that not only may the learned, but even the unlearned Christian, attain to a sufficient understanding of the word.

(5) Providing they make use of the ordinary means appointed of God for the understanding of them; reading attentively and devoutly with prayer and meditation on them, etc.

The Clarity of Scripture Proved.

This perspicuity of the scriptures I shall prove by the following arguments.

(1) The scripture plainly teaches its own perspicuity and clearness in this sense. It is called a lamp and a light, Psalms 119:105. The very “entrance of it (it is said) gives light and understanding to the simple,” Psalms 119:130. See Proverbs 6:23. The apostle, 2 Peter 1:19, calls the holy scriptures a light, and particularly the word of prophecy, or the prophetic word, which of all the rest seems most dark, yet this he calls a light and a shining light, shining in a dark place; shewing thereby, that where it comes and shines, though the place be of itself dark, yet it dispels the darkness.

(2) Such is the way God hath delivered his word, that its commands are not remote from the understanding; the meanest believer hath no reason to complain of the difficulty of it in the things necessary to salvation, Deuteronomy 30:11, etc. “For this command which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off: It is not in heaven, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it in unto us, that we may hear it, and do it! But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

(3) If all things necessary to salvation be understood by all sincere Christians, and this by virtue of the Spirit dwelling in every believer, then the scriptures are clear in all things necessary to salvation to the meanest believer. But the former is true: 1 Corinthians 2:15, “He that is spiritual judgeth all things;” 1 John 2:20, 27, “Ye have an unction from the holy One, and ye know all things. The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but the same anointing teacheth you of all things.” Consider to whom John is there speaking, not only to learned men and great divines, but to all believers, even to little children; to all that have the Spirit, which is common to all; “for if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

(4) The things that are necessary to salvation are hid only to unbelievers, in whom the God of this world hath blinded their eyes; as for others, God himself hath taught them, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 6.

(5) God hath promised to write his law in his people’s hearts, and that he himself will teach them to know himself, Jeremiah 31:33-34; therefore the scripture must needs be perspicuous and clear in things necessary to salvation: for that which is written in our hearts cannot be but clear unto us; and that which God himself teacheth us cannot be obscure, for who teacheth like God?

(6) If the scriptures be not clear in themselves to all believers, but that all its perspicuity depends on the interpretation of the church, then our faith is to be ultimately resolved into the testimony of man; but that cannot be, for human testimony is not infallible and authentic, and therefore cannot found divine faith and an infallible persuasion. The reason of the consequence is clear. Hearers are obliged if they will not pin their faith on men’s sleeves, to compare the interpretations given by men, with the scriptures themselves; which is utterly unpracticable, unless the scriptures be clear in themselves in such things as are necessary to salvation.

(7) The perspicuity of the scripture appears, if ye consider their author, who is God himself, the Father of lights; and the end for which he gave the scriptures unto the church, viz. that they might be a rule of faith and life. Of his power to speak plainly, who can doubt? and the end for which they are given may sufficiently satisfy as to his will to speak so; for how can they be a rule to us, if wrapt up so as we cannot understand them without the church’s interpretation, in those things that are necessary to salvation?

2. Scripture is a Perfect Rule.

2. It is a perfect rule. There is nothing necessary to be believed or done but what is to be found there. It is a perfect rule for us to walk by in the way to heaven and glory. What can be more desired than that in the text, It is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness? “The law of the Lord is perfect,” Psalms 19:7. The scriptures were written that men might have life, John 20:31, and comfort and hope in all conditions, Romans 15:4. But I insisted on this more fully in the preceding doctrine.

3. Scripture is the Only Rule for Faith and Life.

3. It is the only rule. Every doctrine taught any manner of way in religion must be brought to this rule, and if it agree not with it, must be rejected, Isaiah 8:20. Hereby traditions must be tried, Matthew 15:3; and spirits or revelations, 1 John 4:1; and nothing must be added to it, Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18. I shall shut up with a few inferences.

Inferences.

Inference 1. The opinions of fathers, decrees of councils, acts of assemblies, covenants, and minister’s sermons, are not the rule of faith to us; nor can any of them bind us but in so far as they are agreeable to the word of God, by which all of them must be judged and examined, Isaiah 8:20.

Inference 2. Translations of the scriptures into the vulgar languages are most necessary and profitable. How otherwise should the unlearned read them, if they were not translated? It was by means of these translations that Romish Babel was brought down at the Reformation, as by the division of tongues the building of old Babel was hindered. And that makes the Papists such enemies to translations of the scriptures. We have reason to bless God for human learning, by which these translations are made, seeing the prophets and apostles wrote in languages which but few understand.

Inference 3. This may give us a just abhorrence of Popery, which almost in every point on this head casts dust on the scriptures. The Papists deny the necessity of translations; will not allow the people the free reading of the Bible; cry out on it for its obscurity; accuse it of imperfection; and add their traditions to it, that it may not be the only rule. And thus they blaspheme both God and his word, and expose themselves to that direful threatening, Revelation 22:18.

Inference 4. This may also give us a just detestation of Quakerism, which sets up the light within men, which in very deed is nothing but a natural conscience, and the spirit without the scriptures, to be a rule to men. But their light is but darkness, and their spirit a spirit of darkness and delusion, if it agree not with the scriptures, Isaiah 8:20, and must be tried and examined by the scriptures, 1 John 4:1. The Quakers are a dangerous set of people that overturn the foundation of true religion.

Inference 5. This may likewise give us a just abhorrence of the superstition and ceremonies of the church of England, wherewith they have corrupted the worship of God, rejecting the simplicity of gospel worship, and regulating their worship in many things not by the scripture, but the dregs of Antichrist: Deuteronomy 4:2, “Ye shall not add unto the word that I command you.” What word? Statutes, Deuteronomy 4:1, ceremonies and rites of worship. To baptize with water is Christ’s command; but who has added the sign of the cross? Christ instituted the sacrament of the supper: but who has added kneeling, to overturn the table-gesture, which we have from Christ’s own example? The Lord’s day is of divine institution: but whose are the numerous holidays observed in the church of England? Matthew 15:9. What is all this but an accusing the scripture of imperfection, as if God had not laid down a sufficient rule to teach us how we may glorify him: as if they were ashamed of simple scripture-worship, but they must deck it up in the whorish garments made by their own brains? God has a special zeal for his worship; and it becomes us to quicken our zeal for it, in a time when enemies are bringing in innovations in worship into this church, and setting up their Dagon beside the ark. But though God should, for our contempt of our pure worship, plague the land with this superstitious worship once more, yet as sure as Babylon shall fall, it shall fall and flee before the glory of the latter days.

Inference 6. Lastly, Be exhorted to study the holy scriptures. Read them in your families, and read them in secret, and cry for the Holy Spirit, who dictated them, to make you understand them. Lock them not up in your chests, and let them not lie dusty in your windows, as too many do to their shame and disgrace, lest the dust of them witness against you. Prefer the Bible to all other books, as the book whereof God himself is the author. Prize and esteem it, as shewing you the way to salvation, as a lamp to your feet, and a light to your paths.

https://purelypresbyterian.com/

QUESTION: What is the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture?

 ANSWER

ANSWER

The word perspicuity means “clarity.” To say that something is perspicacious is to say that it is clear. The doctrine of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture is one of the basic tenets of Protestant evangelicalism regarding the Bible, along with the doctrines of the inspirationinerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture. In short, the doctrine of perspicuity means that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense.

The Westminster Confession of Faith explains what Protestants believe about the perspicuity of Scripture: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Yet, those things that are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or another, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” (1.7).

The doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture was a main belief of the Reformers. Martin Luther taught against the Roman Catholic claim that the Bible is imperspicuous, that is, too obscure and difficult for the common people to understand. The Bible, the priests and bishops taught, was unclear, and the people should not be trusted to interpret or even read it for themselves. On the contrary, the Reformers encouraged lay Christians to study and interpret God’s Word on their own. The Reformers believed that the Bible proclaimed itself to be inherently clear and that God is able to communicate His message to all men, even the unlettered. A main tenet of the Reformation is that Scripture is clear enough for the simplest person to live by. Because of their belief in the perspicuity of Scripture, men like John WycliffeWilliam TyndaleMartin LutherMyles CoverdaleThomas Matthew, and Pierre Olivétan went to great lengths to translate the Bible into the vernacular.

The Bible itself proclaims its own perspicuity. Deuteronomy 6:6–7 exhorts parents to teach the Scriptures to their children, indicating that they can be understood by children. The New Testament confirms this when the apostle Paul encourages Timothy to continue in the things he has known of the Holy Scriptures from childhood (2 Timothy 3:14–15a). Psalm 19:7 declares that the “testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (ESV). Surely, the simple cannot be made wise by something they are unable to understand. Psalm 119:130 further explains that God’s Word “gives understanding to the simple,” meaning that it is not necessary to be highly educated to comprehend its truths. The Bible’s meaning is clear to all.

The doctrine of perspicuity means the Bible is clear in its essential matters and able to expose to man that which is comprehensible to him about God—His nature, His character, His dealings with mankind in the past, and His plans for the future. The Bible is clear in all that is necessary for man to know in regard to his sinful state, his need for salvation, and the means of attaining that salvation, faith in Christ (Romans 3:22).

The doctrine of perspicuity does not mean that every passage of Scripture is equally clear as to its precise meaning. Certainly, there are passages that can be obscure to modern readers due to historical or cultural references. And some of the theology is difficult; Peter said that Scripture contains “some things that are hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16). The perspicuity of the Word of God does not eliminate the need for interpretation, explanation, and exposition of the Bible by diligent scholars.

Finite man can never fully comprehend the infinite. “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isaiah 55:8–9). Impeded by the sin nature, our ability to completely understand all of Scripture won’t be perfected in this life. But one day, the understanding of all mysteries will be complete: “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Nor does the doctrine of perspicuity mean that all the meaning of Scripture is fully comprehensible to sinful man. First Corinthians 2:14 says that the things of the Spirit are foolish to the man without the Spirit, and he cannot understand them. It is not that an unsaved person cannot understand what the words of Scripture are saying. Rather, he cannot have a spiritual understanding. The Word is understandable to an unsaved person on an external level. He comprehends the words, the syntax, and the sentence structure. Scripture is clear on that level, but, sadly, its spiritual meaning is either insignificant to him, or, worse, it is incredible. The doctrine of perspicuity must be coupled with the doctrine of illumination; the Holy Spirit must illumine the mind of the reader or hearer of Scripture if he is to grasp its spiritual significance.

There are dangers inherent in denying the perspicuity of the Word of God. If we believe the Bible is unclear about the doctrine of salvation, for example, then we will see ourselves as unaccountable to the gospel and live as we please. Worse, if Christ is the only means of escaping an eternity in hell, but God has obscured that message, then He would indeed be cruel and capricious. But God is neither cruel nor capricious. He is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). He has spoken, and He has spoken clearly. His plan of salvation is clear to all because He desires mankind to be saved (Matthew 28:19–20).

Denying the perspicuity of the Word of God would also allow us to ignore the commands to read, study, meditate upon Scripture and apply it to our lives. If the Word is unclear, then there would be no need to teach it in our homes or churches, as we are exhorted to do.

Another danger inherent in dismissing the Bible as unclear is that it absolves man of the responsibility to live within its precepts. If “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13, KJV) can be called into question because it’s “unclear,” then what’s to stop us from sanctioning murder? If the Bible is not perspicacious, then everyone should be allowed to do what is right in his own eyes. God has commanded us to handle Scripture accurately (2 Timothy 2:15); those who promote misconceptions about the word of truth or who discount it due to a supposed lack of clarity will be “ashamed.”

Finally, if the Word of God is not perspicacious, then translating it from the original languages and disseminating it throughout the world would be pointless. If the words and meanings are unclear, translators could re-invent, distort, or ignore its precepts and commands, rendering Scripture null and void.

The Word of God is clear. Its meaning is comprehensible even to children and the simple. It gives light to our paths (Psalm 119:105). It is perfect, true, right, and sure (Psalm 19:8–9). By the perspicacious teachings of Scripture, we are given guidance, and “in keeping them there is great reward” (Psalm 19:11).

https://www.gotquestions.org/perspicuity-of-Scripture.html

The Clarity of Scripture (John MacArthur, 1939 - )

 The doctrine of the clarity (or perspicuity) of Scripture (that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable, and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense) has been a cornerstone of evangelical belief ever since the Reformation.

The dominant Roman Catholic idea had been that the Bible was obscure and difficult to understand. But the Reformers disagreed, arguing instead that anyone who could read could understand biblical teaching. Rather than limiting biblical interpretation to the clergy or the Magisterium, the Reformers encouraged lay Christians to study and interpret God's Word on their own. All of this was premised on the Reformed belief that the Bible itself was inherently clear, and that God had been able to communicate His message to men in an understandable fashion. As Luther explained to Erasmus:

But, if many things still remain abstruse to many, this does not arise from obscurity in the Scriptures, but from [our] own blindness or want [i.e. lack] of understanding, who do not go the way to see the all-perfect clearness of truth. . . . Let, therefore, wretched men cease to impute, with blasphemous perverseness, the darkness and obscurity of their own heart to the all-clear Scriptures of God. . . . If you speak of the internal clearness, no man sees one iota in the Scriptures but he that hath the Spirit of God. . . . If you speak of the external clearness, nothing whatever is left obscure or ambiguous; but all things that are in the Scriptures, are by the Word brought forth into the clearest light, and proclaimed to the whole world. (Bondage of the Will, 25-29)

While such an understanding, as Luther openly admits, did not demand complete agreement among Protestants on every secondary doctrine, it did establish an important principle: That the Word of God was revealed in an understandable way, that its central message is clear, and that (because it is clear) all men are fully accountable to its message.

In contrast to this, the teachings of Brian McLaren (and others of his Emergent persuasion) directly assault the doctrine of biblical clarity. Instead of promoting a settled confidence in the fact that the Bible can be understood, McLaren does just the opposite. And he does so in at least five important ways.

1. McLaren and Doctrinal Uncertainty

First, McLaren undermines the clarity of Scripture by denying that biblical doctrine can be held with any degree of certainty. Certainty, of course, comes from clarity. Where there is no clarity, there is no certainty. And vice versa.

For the Reformers, it was because the Bible was clear that they were certain about its central message. But not so for McLaren, who says : "Certainty is overrated . . . History teaches us that a lot of people thought they were certain and we found out they weren't." And in another place :

When we talk about the word 'faith' and the word 'certainty,' we've got a whole lot of problems there. What do we mean by 'certainty'? . . . Certainty can be dangerous. What we need is a proper confidence that's always seeking the truth and that's seeking to live in the way God wants us to live, but that also has the proper degree of self-critical and self-questioning passion.

In A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren even makes it a point to champion ambiguity. He writes,

A warning: as in most of my other books, there are places here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity. (pp. 22-23)

So it comes as no surprise, then, when he readily admits that he is not even sure if what he is espousing is correct.

If I seem to show too little respect for your opinions or thought, be assured I have equal doubts about my own, and I don't mind if you think I'm wrong. I'm sure I am wrong about many things, although I'm not sure exactly which things I'm wrong about. I'm even sure I'm wrong about what I think I'm right about in at least some cases. So wherever you think I'm wrong, you could be right. If, in the process of determining that I'm wrong, you are stimulated to think more deeply and broadly, I hope that I will have somehow served you anyway. (Ibid., 19-20)

For McLaren, benefit comes not from being right, but from dialoguing with those of all different viewpoints. Thus, there is great reward in always pursuing but never finally arriving at truth. Correctness in doctrine is something that cannot be attained—at least not with any degree of certainty. In McLaren's words, "The achievement of 'right thinking' therefore recedes, happily, farther beyond our grasp the more we pursue it. As it eludes us, we are strangely rewarded: we feel gratitude and love, humility and wonder, reverence and awe, adventure and homecoming"(Generous Orthodoxy, 296). In his view, Christians "must be open to the perpetual possibility that our received understandings of the gospel may be faulty, imbalanced, poorly nuanced, or downright warped and twisted . . . [and must] continually expect to rediscover the gospel" (Ibid., 261).

McLaren rightly anticipates the fact that theological conservatives will find such an approach to biblical doctrine unacceptable.

If, for you, orthodox means finally "getting it right" or "getting it straight," mine is a pretty disappointing, curvy orthodoxy. But if, for you, orthodoxy isn't a list of correct doctrines, but rather the doxa in orthodoxy means "thinking" or "opinion," then the lifelong pursuit of expanding thinking and deepening, broadening opinions about God sounds like a delight, a joy. (Ibid., 293-94)

By reducing biblical doctrines to "opinions," McLaren denies both Scripture's clarity and its authority. Because the Bible is unclear, the chorus of divergent interpretations are all granted equal validity. This means, then, that the authority of any one viewpoint (as that which is correct) vanishes, since all sides are equally reduced to nothing more than personal opinion.

This article is adapted from the Fall issue of The Master's Seminary Journal. The full text of this article can be read by obtaining a copy of thejournal .

2. McLaren and Interpretive Complexity

Second, McLaren sees such incredible degrees of complexity, with even the most straightforward biblical teachings, that he hopelessly obscures what the Bible makes simple. One example, of many possible, would be his vacillation with regard to homosexuality. Though the issue is clear cut in Scripture (Genesis 19; Leviticus 18:22Romans 1:26-271 Corinthians 6:9-11; cf. Galatians 5:19-21Ephesians 5:3-51 Timothy 1:910Jude 7), McLaren remains unsure. He writes,

Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us." That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think. Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren't sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn. (Online Source )

In other words, McLaren sees so much complexity—in both the biblical prohibition and the contemporary practice regarding homosexual behavior—that he is unable to respond definitively to the question of homosexuality. While such a blatant disregard for the straightforward teaching of Scripture hardly needs a response, Doug Wilson's rebuttal seems particularly apropos.

If someone were to ask me whether the Bible teaches that Jesus went to Capernaum, I would say yes, it does. I would not be in agony over the question. It is not the most important question, but it is clear. If someone were to ask if the apostle Paul taught that homosexual behavior (both male and female forms) is the dead end result of idolatry, I would say yes again. No agony in the exegesis whatever. There is only agony if you are lusting after respect from the world, which they will not give to you unless you are busy making plenty of room for their lusts. And that is what the emergent movement is doing—this is really all about sex. And, conveniently enough, this has the added benefit of making room for evangelical lusts. Son of a gun. All that agony paid off.  (Online source )

For McLaren, other areas of ambiguity (or even outright disregard for the straightforward reading of Scripture) include doctrines like eternal punishment,  eternal life, biblical inerrancy, divine sovereignty, divine masculinity, any doctrinal "distinctive," and any teaching that would exclude other denominations or even other religions from being enthusiastically embraced (cf. A Generous Orthodoxy, 19, 74, 81, 100, 113-14, 159-60). As he himself says, "The last thing I want is to get into nauseating arguments about why this or that form of theology (dispensational, covenant, charismatic, whatever) or methodology (cell church, megachurch, liturgical church, seeker church, blah, blah, blah) is right . . ." (Ibid., 19). 

Even truth itself is presented as a concept too complicated for most people to understand.

[One] other issue is absolute truth. . . . The levels of complexity are so deep that a lot of people have no idea what they're talking about. . . . Sometime the words absolute truth mean for people that they never have to give a second thought. I believe that to be a human being, although we can know truth, we are never in a position where we shouldn't stand open to the possibility of correction. When people use the word truth, they can mean a lot of different things. . . . But when you use a word like this, you're entering into a philosophical discussion that has been around since the time of the Greeks and is a very profound, difficult, sophisticated discussion. (Relevant Magazine interview, issue 21) 

Ironically, in his most recent book, The Secret Message of Jesus, McLaren asserts that there are certain areas of doctrine on which he will speak clearly. He writes,

In one of my previous books, I said that clarity is sometimes overrated and that intrigue is correspondingly undervalued. But here I want to say—clearly—that it is tragic for anyone, especially anyone affiliated with the religion named after Jesus, not to be clear about what Jesus' message actually was. (The Secret Message of Jesus, 7).

Throughout the rest of The Secret Message of Jesus, McLaren proceeds to present Jesus' Kingdom message in a way that most closely aligns with the non-eschatological, social activism of twentieth century liberalism. But such an understanding hardly accounts for many of the clear New Testament statements as to the true essence of the gospel message (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-42 Corinthians 5:17-21, for instance).

Moreover, by asserting that this "secret message" has just recently been discovered, McLaren is forced to deal with the question: "why hasn't this reading arisen sooner?" (Ibid., 211). While a refutation of McLaren's reasons (which are ultimately unconvincing) are outside the scope of this series, the following point remains: By overturning the historic understanding of Scripture with a new, secret message of Jesus, McLaren has again undermined the clarity of Scripture. Only a Bible that is impossibly ambiguous can fit in McLaren's neo-gnostic model.

3. McLaren and Propositional Truth 

Third, McLaren dismisses propositional truth statements as a valid way for understanding the Bible. By denying the correspondence theory of truth, and instead embracing the approach of Lesslie Newbigin —that there really is no difference between facts and assumptions—McLaren and his colleagues are essentially driven to a place where no objective truth is possible (or at least possible to know definitively), and where any opinion is as good as any other.

McLaren is not the first to attempt this within evangelical circles. In his 1993 book, Revisioning Evangelical TheologyStanley J. Grenz sets out a similar premise, in which "we as evangelicals not view theology merely as the restatement of a body of propositional truths" as we engage "in the quest for truth" (p. 79).  Because any one understanding of doctrine may be incorrect, as a model of understanding reality, even when "informed by Scripture and by the mileposts of theological history—we must maintain a stance of openness to other models, being aware of the tentativeness and incompleteness of all such systems" (Ibid., p. 84). According to Grenz, propositional truth statements are the outmoded garments of modernism, which—like last year's clothing styles—desperately need to be discarded.  

The problem with evangelical propositionalism is its often under-developed understanding of how the cognitive dimension functions within the larger whole of revelation. Therefore evangelical theologians tend to misunderstand the social nature of theological discourse. More than its advocates have cared to admit, evangelical theology has been the captive of the orientation to the individual knower that has reigned over the Western mindset throughout the modern era. But this orientation is now beginning to lose its grip. Therefore, if our theology is to speak the biblical message in our contemporary situation, we must shed the cloak of modernity and reclaim the more profound community outlook in which the biblical people of God were rooted. (Ibid., p. 73)

While such statements may satisfy postmodern philosophers, they do little to promote any confidence in the clarity of Scripture. In fact, they do exactly the opposite—making room for a type of biblical interpretation in which anyone's view is as good as anyone else's. It is this subjectivism, practically speaking, that poses such a serious threat. As Al Mohler rightly observes:

The Emergent movement represents a significant challenge to biblical Christianity. Unwilling to affirm that the Bible contains propositional truths that form the framework for Christian belief, this movement argues that we can have Christian symbolism and substance without those thorny questions of truthfulness that have so vexed the modern mind. The worldview of postmodernism—complete with an epistemology that denies the possibility of or need for propositional truth—affords the movement an opportunity to hop, skip and jump throughout the Bible and the history of Christian thought in order to take whatever pieces they want from one theology and attach them, like doctrinal post-it notes, to whatever picture they would want to draw. (Online Source )

McLaren and his emergent associates deny allegations of relativism.  But, as John Frame notes , "although McLaren renounces relativism . . ., it is not clear when and how he would fight for the truth over against error."  Practically speaking, then, his system embraces such doctrinal and hermeneutical subjectivism that, essentially, any view is accepted—as long as it shows tolerance to other views within the confines of dialogue. In order to keep the conversation going, this subjectivism begins with a denial that Scripture is clear, and that what it says is authoritative for faith and practice.

This is in keeping with its postmodern premise. The one essential, non-negotiable demand that postmodernism makes of everyone is this: No one is supposed to think he or she knows any objective truth. Because postmodernists often suggest that every opinion should be shown equal respect, it seems (on the surface) to be driven by a broad-minded concern for harmony and tolerance. It all sounds very charitable and altruistic. But what really underlies the postmodernist belief system is an utter intolerance for every worldview that makes any universal truth-claims—particularly biblical Christianity.

4. McLaren and Religious Ecumenism

The exclusivity of the Christian gospel is an unmistakable theme that runs throughout Scripture. In the Old Testament, the Lord plainly told the Hebrew people:

You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Exodus 20:3-6; cf. 20:2323:2434:14Leviticus 19:4Joshua 23:72 Kings 17:35)

In the New Testament, the message is equally clear. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). The apostle Peter proclaimed to a hostile audience, "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). The apostle John wrote, ". . . but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). Again and again, Scripture stresses that Jesus Christ is the only hope of salvation for the world. "For there is one God [and] one mediator also between God and men, [the] Man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). Only Christ can atone for sin, and therefore only Christ can provide salvation. "And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life" (1 John 5:11-12).

Of course, those truths are antithetical to the central tenet of postmodernism. They make exclusive, universal truth-claims, authoritatively declaring Christ the only true way to heaven and all other belief-systems erroneous. That is what Scripture teaches. It is also what the true church has proclaimed throughout her history. It is the message of Christianity. And it simply cannot be adjusted to accommodate postmodern sensitivities and immoralities.

McLaren, however, flatly rejects the straightforward exclusivism of Scripture. In his version of orthodoxy, Christians should "see members of other religions and non-religions not as enemies but as beloved neighbors, whenever possible, as dialogue partners and even collaborators" (A Generous Orthodoxy, 35).  Thus, "having acknowledged and accepted the coexistence of other faiths, Christians should actually talk with people of other faiths, engaging in gentle and respectful dialogue. . . . We must assume that God is an unseen partner in our dialogues who has something to teach all participants, including us" (Ibid., 257-58). Later he writes:

To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are) to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love, as mine has been entered by the Lord. I do this because of my deep identity as a fervent Christian, not in spite of it. (Ibid., 264; cf. The Secret Message of Jesus, 4-8) 

In light of his apparent openness to non-Christian faiths, it is not surprising that he finds all broadly Christian religions to also be equally valid. After discussing the "Jesus" of the Conservative Protestant, the Pentecostal, the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Liberal Protestant, the Anabaptist, and the Liberation Theologian, he asks, 

Why not celebrate them all? . . . Up until recent decades, each tribe felt it had to uphold one image of Jesus and undermine some or all of the others. What if, instead, we saw these various emphases as partial projections that together can create a hologram; a richer, multidimensional vision of Jesus?

What if we enjoy them all, the way we enjoy foods from differing cultures? Aren't we glad we can enjoy Thai food this week, Chinese next, Italian the following week, Mexican next month, and Khmer after than? What do we gain by saying that Chinese food is permissible, but Mexican food is poison? Isn't there nourishment and joy (and pleasure) to be had from each tradition? (Ibid., 66)

Without question, the Bible's claim that salvation is in Christ alone by faith alone is certainly out of harmony with the emergent notion of "tolerance." But it is, after all, just what the Bible plainly teaches. In the words of John Frame,

But again, McLaren is insensitive to spiritual warfare. The Bible is sharply negative toward false worship, the worship of idols, rather than the true God. Paul's missionary labors were not only positive, but also negative: to turn the Gentiles away from their idols to serve Christ (as in Acts 17:29-311 Thessalonians 1:9). . . . Insofar as McLaren confuses the issue of false worship, he confuses something of vital importance to the God of Scripture. (Online Source )

Only by turning a blind eye to the Bible's clear teaching, can the broad ecumenism of McLaren be entertained with any enthusiasm.


This article originally appeared in Pulpit Magazine , an online magazine of the Shepherds' Fellowship Grace Community Church .

5. McLaren and Conservative Evangelicals

Fifth, McLaren strongly criticizes those who believe that the Bible can be interpreted clearly. This criticism is most sharply leveled at Reformed conservatives—namely, those who are most committed to the clear teachings of Scripture, and the propositional truths found in the Bible.

For example, McLaren compares the five points of Calvinism to "cigarettes, the use of which often leads to a hard-to-break Protestant habit that is hazardous to spiritual health (and that makes the breath smell bad)" (A Generous Orthodoxy, 195), and describes systematic theologies as "conceptual cathedrals of proposition and argument" which demonstrate the "arrogant intellectualizing" of modern evangelicals (Ibid., 151-52).  He denounces those who hold, with any conviction, to "a foundationalist epistemology," biblical inerrancy,  or the solas of the Reformation (cf. Ibid., 117, 159-60, 164, 198).  Says McLaren, "The belief that truth is best understood by reducing it to a few fundamentals or a single 'sola' insight is, to me, at least questionable if not downright dangerous" (Ibid., 198). 

Those who believe the Bible presents clear propositional truth statements, which can be believed and defended with certainty, are negatively described as those who "claim (overtly, covertly, or unconsciously) to have final orthodoxy nailed down, freeze-dried, and shrink-wrapped forever" (Ibid., 286) and who "claim to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall" (Ibid., 293). Near the beginning of A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren admits:

. . . you should know that I am horribly unfair in this book, lacking all scholarly objectivity and evenhandedness. My own upbringing was way out on the end of one of the most conservative twigs of one of the most conservative branches of one of the most conservative limbs of Christianity, and I am far harder on conservative Protestant Christians who share that heritage than I am on anyone else. I'm sorry. I am consistently oversympathetic to Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, even dreaded liberals, while I keep elbowing my conservative brethren in the ribs in a most annoying—some would say ungenerous—way. I cannot even pretend to be objective or fair. (p. 35)

But the reason for the rub is much deeper than merely a reaction, by McLaren, to his upbringing. The problem is that the propositionalism of conservative, biblical Christianity is antithetical to, and incompatible with, McLaren's post-conservative, ambiguous non-orthodoxy. The two are mutually exclusive.

Interestingly, McLaren also redefines humility as a willingness to accept doctrinal uncertainty, and then promotes it as the foremost virtue of his emergent worldview.

. . . what we need is not new sectarian terminology or new jargon or a new elitist clique, but rather a humble rediscovery of the simple, mysterious way of Jesus that can be embraced across the whole Christian horizon (and beyond). What we need is something lived, not just talked or written about. The last thing we need is a new group of proud, super protestant, hyper puritan, ultra restorationist reformers who say, "Only we've got it right!" and thereby damn everybody else to the bin of five minutes ago and the bucket of below-average mediocrity. . . .  A generous orthodoxy, in contrast to the tense narrow, controlling, or critical orthodoxies of so much of Christian history, doesn't take itself too seriously. It is humble; it doesn't claim too much; it admits it walks with a limp. (Ibid., 19, 155)

Tolerance, then, is the new humility. Blind to the outrageous pride of condescendingly elevating oneself above the church's greatest theologians and exegetes, McLaren insists that his position is humble. But those who are unwilling to tolerate other ideas, even when those ideas contradict the plain reading of Scripture, he denounces as arrogant, disrespectful, and insensitive (Ibid., 258-59).  In this way, McLaren attempts to discredit those who boldly proclaim the clear message of Scripture. Instead of humbly acknowledging and submitting to the clarity of God's revealed Word—which is true humility (Is. 66:1-2), McLaren redefines humility in order to undercut his detractors without having to address their arguments. Perhaps this is why more conservative pastors, even within the broader ECM, find McLaren's approach so dangerous. In the words of Mark Driscoll:

Postmodernity is tough to pin down, though, because it changes the rules of hermeneutics but keeps the Bible. Some post-modern pastors keep the Bible but reduce it to a story lacking any authority over us, feeling free to play with the interpretation and meaning of particular texts. They do not believe in a singular truthful interpretation. They believe that the interpreter ultimately has authority over the text and can therefore use it as he or she pleases rather than submit to it.

While this dance may seem novel, it is as old as Eden. Satan first used this tactic on Adam and Eve, and later used it to tempt Jesus, by manipulating God's Word to change its meaning. In previous generations, the fight was over the inerrancy of Scripture. Today, the fight is over the authority and meaning of Scripture. (The Radical Reformission, 168)

Concluding Remarks Regarding Brian McLaren

There will be some, no doubt, who find the above analysis unfair or unloving. But there is much more at stake, with Brian McLaren and his collaborators at Emergent, than mere semantics or slight philosophical disagreement. The purity of the gospel itself is at stake. If God's Word cannot be understood with certainty then a saving comprehension of the gospel becomes an impossible task. But if the straightforward reading of Scripture is allowed to stand, then McLaren's system of doctrinal subjectivity crashes to the ground. As D.A. Carson observes in Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: "I have to say, as kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything, both McLaren and [Steve] Chalke [another ECM author] have largely abandoned the gospel" (p. 186). 

For those who share "the love of the truth" (2 Thesalonians. 2:10), and who are committed to "guard what has been entrusted" to them (1 Timothy 6:20), no room can be made for the philosophical agenda of Emergent. The apostle Paul reserved the harshest words for those who would undermine the gospel:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed! (Galatians 1:6-9)

And the Lord Himself warned His followers, "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves" (Matthew 7:15). After all, those who distort the Scriptures do so to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

https://www.gty.org/