Chapter 3.1

Born Again Authority

The Human Authentication of Beliefs

Table of Topics

A) Introduction: The Concept of Authority

B) The God-Ordained Chain of Authority

B.1) The Foundational Authority of God the Father

B.2) The Delegated Authority of God the Son

B.3) The God-Ordained Authority of the Prophets & Apostles

B.4) The God-Ordained Authority of the Scriptures

B.5) The God-ordained Authority of Human Authorities

C) The God-ordained Authority of Private Judgment

C.1) Defining Private Judgment: Our Final Subjective Authority

C.2) Biblical Support for Private Judgment

C.3) Historical Support for Private Judgment

C.4) Defending Private Judgment

C.4.a) Against Popes

C.4.b) Against mysticism

C.4.c) Against Protestant sola Scriptura

C.4.d) Against the “testimony” and “illumination” of Spirit

C.4.e) Against Liberalism

C.4.f) Against Postmodernism

D) The God-ordained Authentication of Authority: God-like deeds before God-like demands

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• Authority is the granted or enforced power to control our life.
• God is the ultimate objective authority in our life.
• God has delegated His authoritative words to Christ, the Apostles and Prophets, and now Scripture.
• Scripture does not directly exercise authority in our life, but must be accepted and interpreted by our private judgment.
• Private judgment is the God-given authority delegated to human reason to ultimately decide what we will believe and do.
• Our private judgment exercises authority over the recognition and interpretation of Scripture and is the final subjective authority in our life, despite various Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines.
• Objective authority (i.e. God, Scripture) is what in reality has authority over us and will rightfully judge our life.
• Subjective authority is what we accept as our authority and which practically controls our life.
• Because God has delegated final subjective authority to human reason, He remains the ultimate objective authority.
• Because God is the ultimate objective authority, He will judge us for how we used the subjective authority He delegated to our reason.
• Biblical support for human private judgment can especially be found in Romans 14.
• Historical support for the doctrine can be found particularly in the Reformers.
• God always authenticates God-like authority with God-like deeds.
• A Christian’s private judgment transcends other forms of foundational authentication and authority such as the Papacy in Roman Catholicism, a “testimony of the Spirit” in Calvinism, and mere Scripture in Evangelicalism.

A) Introduction: The Concept of Authority

Authority is obviously a very important concept. The popular British theologian, J. I. Packer, rightfully remarks:

The problem of authority is the most fundamental problem that the Christian Church ever faces. This is because Christianity is built on truth: that is to say, on the content of a divine revelation. ^[1]

Not surprisingly, the topic of authority is also fairly complex and controversial; earning the description that one respected theologian gave it when he called it “difficult terrain.” ^[2]

Webster’s defines authority as: “power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior.” ^[3] The Baptist theologian Millard Erickson says: “By authority we mean the right to command belief and/or action.” ^[4] The Presbyterian scholar Donald Bloesch adds: “Authority in the biblical sense means the power and right to determine what is true or valid. Authority carries the connotation of . . . binding force.” ^[5] Dr. Packer writes:

To have authority is to have a right to rule and a claim to exercise control. Authority is expressed in directives and acknowledged by compliance and conformity. . . . the thought of rightful dominance remains central. ^[6]

Dr. Packer also adds several important and additional perspectives on authority. First, he differentiates between authority and authoritarianism and says:

Authoritarianism is authority corrupted, gone to seed. Authoritarianism appears when the submission that is demanded cannot be justified in terms of truth or morality, and actually harms those who submit. Nazism, Communism, Jim Jones’s cult in Guyana, and David Koresh’s Branch Davidians in Waco are examples. . . . Authoritarianism is evil, anti-social, anti-human, and ultimately anti-God (for self-deifying pride is at its heart), and I have nothing to say in its favor. . . .

God’s law corresponds to created human nature, so that in fulfilling his requirements we fulfill ourselves. The gospel of Christ answers to actual human need, as glove fits hand, so that all our responses to God work for our good, and no touch of authoritarianism enters into his exercise of authority over us. ^[7]

Dr. Packer also notes the importance of authority in our lives when he comments:

The one who knows no obligation to do anything lives the saddest, most aimless, most distracted life of all. So the anti-authority syndrome now current in the West, leading as it does to lives of haphazard hedonism in which my feelings of like and dislike are the only authority I recognize, is a major human tragedy. We could hardly get further from the way we were meant to live. ^[8]

Our discussion here will concern what might be called “earned authority” where we have a choice, instead of “imposed authority” which is simply forced on us like a dictatorship. Essentially, earned authority is trust, and what we trust, we give power to. Such power, rights, and authority are usually connected with a person. For the Christian, the ultimate source of all authority, over all the Universe, is God the Father. However, He has delegated His authority down through a “God-ordained Chain of Authority.”

B) The God-Ordained Chain of Authority

B.1) The Foundational Authority of God the Father

The authority of Almighty God is vividly and tragically illustrated in the first few pages of the Bible. The Creator had forbidden only one thing in His whole Creation, and the first humans saw to it that that one thing was violated. The consequences of this first human disobedience to the law of God are horrific, and subsequently demonstrate the immense authority of God. Today we might sin against our local authorities and receive a fine, or some sort of probation. When Adam and Eve sinned against God, they brought a curse on themselves and all of humanity that only the death of God the Son could heal.

That God is objectively the ultimate authority of all existence is the Christian view. ^[9] Accordingly, the great Evangelical scholar Carl Henry (1913-2003) wrote:

There is, to be sure, but one absolute priority: the sovereign Creator and Lord of all. In principle, the evangelical believer acknowledges no ultimate authority but the authority of the living God-authoritative even above human reasoning, scientific and theological opinion, ecclesiastical tradition, cultural consensus, empirical observation, and all else. ^[10]

One of many reasons that God has the right to exercise authority over humanity is that He is our Creator. God tells Jeremiah, “With My great power and outstretched arm I made the Earth and its people and the animals that are on it, and I give it to anyone I please” (Jer 27:5). He is simply called The Almighty (Job 37:23) who “can do all things” (Job 42:2) and for whom “Nothing is too hard” (Jer 32:17). What God the Father wants, He ultimately gets. “In Him [God the Son] we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of Him [God the Father] Who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will.” (Eph 1:11).

He is the Potter, and His Creation is His clay (Rom. 9:21). He is the only rightful Judge of all humankind (Rom. 12:19) and, “He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice” (Acts 17:31), and on that day, “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before Me; every tongue will confess to God’” (Rom 14:11). More than this, God the Father is the ultimate Punisher. God the Son said of His Father, “I will show you Whom you should fear: Fear Him Who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into Hell. Yes, I tell you, fear Him” (Luke 12:5). God the Father is “the great King above all gods” (Ps 95:3), He “is enthroned as King forever” (Ps 29:10), and, “The LORD has established His throne in heaven, and His kingdom rules over all” (Ps. 103:19).

King Nebuchadnezzar was given a personal lesson on the authority of God the Father and wrote:

I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward Heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified Him Who lives forever. His dominion is an eternal dominion; His kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the peoples of the Earth are regarded as nothing. He does as He pleases with the powers of Heaven and the peoples of the Earth. No one can hold back His hand or say to Him: “What have you done?” . . . And those who walk in pride He is able to humble. (Dan 4:34-35, 37)

Obviously much more could be said. The point is that God the Father is the ultimate source of all power, dominion, and authority that exists anywhere in all of Creation. More specifically, the Scriptures are clear and consistent concerning the consequences of anyone ignoring, subverting, or otherwise disrespecting that authority. Doing so can land you in Hell forever.

Therefore, the all-important question becomes how do we know what He wants us to know and do in order to please Him? How does God exercise His authority over us? There is no question that can be asked that is more important for a human to have the correct answer to. The first thing to say is that He does so in a rather indirect way, through what we will call “The Divine Chain of Command.” In other words, God the Father does not exercise His authority over us directly. No human has even seen, or can see, His face, let alone have personal/physical contact with Him (cf. Exod 33:20; John 1:18; 6:46; 1 Tim 6:16; 1 John 4:12). He has therefore delegated His authority, and the communication of it, through various persons and means through which He communicates His will for our life. If these people and means are disobeyed, we are disobeying God the Father Almighty Himself.

Pastoral Practices

• It is easy in our teaching to emphasize the practical aspects of Scripture, including the commands, what people are to do and how to do it (e.g. the Christian life, marriage, parenting, etc.). But we must always be sure to give God’s people a healthy diet of doctrines such as the character of God. What could be more important to teach than what God is like, including His all-encompassing authority?

B.2) The Delegated Authority of God the Son

The first “link” in God the Father’s divine chain of command is obviously God the Son. When Christ said, “All authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given to Me” (Matt 28:18), He was speaking of authority that had been delegated to Him by God the Father, not an authority that automatically and intrinsically resided in Himself. God the Son came to do God the Father’s will, even when it wasn’t completely the Son’s will, as demonstrated in the Garden of Gethsemane (cf. Matt 26:39-42; John 10:18). It is God the Father Who:

raised Him [Christ] from the dead and seated Him at His [God the Father’s] right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God [the Father] placed all things under His [God the Son’s] feet and appointed Him to be head over everything for the Church (Eph 1:20-22; cf. 1 Cor 15:24-28; Rev. 2:27)

Christ is indeed the Lord of the Church, even calling it “My church” (Matt 16:18). By giving Christ “all authority in Heaven and on Earth” (Matt 28:18), God the Father has made God the Son our rightful Lord. Accordingly, Christ said:

There is a Judge for the one who rejects Me and does not accept My words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of My own accord, but the Father Who sent Me commanded Me what to say and how to say it. I know that His command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told Me to say. (John 12:48-49)

Disobeying Christ’s commands is disobeying God the Father (cf. John 7:16-17; 10:30), and the divine expectation of all humanity is to become, and to make, disciples of Jesus Christ who “obey everything” He has commanded us to do (cf. Matt 28:20). ^[11]

The fact that God the Son is fully under the authority of God the Father should instruct those who think being under authority is automatically evil or undesirable. Being under authority is even how God lives and it is how He has created things. If being under the God-given authority of someone was so bad, it would not be true of God the Son. He lives and exists in the best and happiest way there is.

Pastoral Practices

• It is a good thing to remind God’s people of the authority of Christ the King. Yet it is important to evaluate how well that authority is being exercised in our church, family, and personal life. So many American Christians live as if they are only in the free, democratic country of the United States of America. Americans have a lot of freedom, have no king, and need only to comply with a relatively small set of laws to stay out of trouble. The Christian is in a different country. It is not even a country, but a Kingdom, with a King who demands absolute allegiance in everything.

Americans are not use to having a King, but Christians need to learn how to live with one because they have one, unlike most Americans. Is Jesus the King of our church, or do we lead it? Is Jesus the King of our family, or do we decide what it does? Are we our own king, living like a typical American with no king? Does our financial budget and weekly schedule reflect the fact that Jesus is our King? We have a King and we should be living like it!

B.3) The God-Ordained Authority of the Prophets & Apostles

However, to say that Christ is our authority is not enough, for even He does not exercise His authority directly today. Therefore, we see the divine chain of command from God the Father through Christ to the Apostles when Christ says to them: “He who receives you [Apostles] receives Me [Christ], and he who receives Me receives the One who sent Me [God the Father]” (Matt 10:40; cf. John 13:20; 15:20; 17:18; 20:21; Acts 1:8; 2 Cor 5:20). The Apostles’ commission from the King was just as authoritative as the Father’s commission of His Son. Accordingly, Christ told the Father, “As you sent Me into the world, I have sent them into the world” (John 17:18). Here we see the divine chain of command from God the Father, to God the Son, to the Apostles of Christ.

The Apostle reminds the Galatians of this God-ordained and God-authenticated chain of command when he opens his letter to them with: “Paul, an Apostle–sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, Who raised Him from the dead” (Gal 1:1; cf. 2:8). The God-like authority of Apostles of the King is clearly communicated when the Apostle told the Thessalonians, “you know what instructions we [Apostles] gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus . . . Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God” (1 Thess 4:2, 8; cf. 2 Cor 10:8; 1 Cor 14:37; 2 Peter 3:15-16). ^[12]

We see then that the Apostles claimed to speak directly for God. All of this is true as well of God’s Prophets. God had communicated concerning them: “I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to My words that the Prophet speaks in My name, I Myself will call him to account” (Deut. 18:18-19). ^[13] The fulfillment of this promise is demonstrated in how the Prophets repeatedly preface their divine statements with “This is what the Lord says,” (over 80 times in Jeremiah alone), or as the NT Prophet Agabus said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says” (Acts 21:11). ^[14]

B.4) The God-Ordained Authority of Scripture

But again, we need to ask how the authority of Jesus Christ is practically exercised in our lives? How do we gain access to this supernatural revelation that has come through Prophets and Apostles? Neither Christ, nor Apostles or Prophets are living today. ^[15] The obvious answer is Scripture. While God does not personally rule over our lives as He will in Heaven, He now exercises His authority through Scripture which can be considered our direct authority. ^[16]

God’s spokesmen were commanded to record their divine revelations so that they could be preserved and distributed for others. God’s precedence for this process was initiated with Moses. We read in Exodus:

Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said . . . Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.” Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these [written] words.” (Exod. 24:4, 7-8; cf. Deut 31:24-26; Jer. 30:22)

What Moses wrote became God’s word and therefore possessed God-like authority. ^[17]

God’s words were recorded in the writing of the Apostles as well. For example, the Apostle Paul says to the Thessalonians, “Therefore, he who rejects this instruction [in my letter] does not reject man but God, Who gives you His Holy Spirit” (1 Thess 4:8).

The Scriptures have a divine authority that is derived from the God-sent messengers who authored them. This is why the Apostle Paul can write: “the holy Scriptures . . . are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:15-17). The “Scriptures” (i.e. writings) are not just any writings, but “holy,” sanctified, set-apart, perfect writings. They are the foundational source of the most important truths for humankind including “salvation.” All Scripture was ultimately created by God, and “breathed out” by Him. There is no divine authority anywhere on Earth except that sanctioned by Scripture. Therefore, all “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training” in God’s will and ways (i.e. “righteousness”) must fully and ultimately depend on it. Nobody and nothing speaks for God apart from Scripture. Scripture is in essence, “God talking.” ^[18]

B.5) The God-ordained Authority of Human Authorities

Thus far then we have seen that God the Father’s divine chain of command consists of Christ, human Prophets and Apostles, and then written Scripture, in that order. However, this objective divine chain of command is not quite complete without adding the God-ordained place of human authorities such as parents, politicians, policemen, and pastors. God has delegated His authority to these institutions as well, and as we discuss elsewhere, to disobey them is to disobey God the Father. ^[19]

God has commanded in Scripture that qualified leaders be appointed in the Church (cf. 1 Tim 3:1-10; Tit 1:5-9; 1 Pet 5:1-2; Heb 13:17; Deut 17:8-13), that wives respect and follow husbands and children do the same with parents (cf. Eph 5:22-6:4), and that governmental authorities have delegated power from God (cf. Rom 13:1-7). Accordingly, these human authorities speak with the authority of God because He has given them their authority, and to ignore, disrespect, or disobey them is to do the same to God.

Obviously, however, the same Scripture that grants these human authorities divine authority over Christians, is the same Scripture that limits that authority. Accordingly, Dr. Packer makes an important point on this issue when he writes:

If conforming to ecclesiastical, governmental, marital, or parental demands involves action contrary to Scripture, God can only be served by nonconformity at that point. This may put us out of step with others and prove costly to us, but nothing less will please God. ^[20]

Therefore, the divine authority of respectable human authorities must be recognized, but the authority of Scripture is even greater in God’s divine chain of command, illustrating its immense authority indeed.

Pastoral Practices

• As Pastors we must recognize the awesome spiritual authority we have (cf. Heb 13:17), along with its purpose to build up God’s people, not puff up ourselves (cf. 2 Cor 10:8; 13:10). We must also recognize it is limited by Scripture and that a Pastor who makes his own extra-biblical opinions, sound like divine commands, has gone beyond the authority God has given him.

C) The God-Ordained Authority of Private Judgment: Is Scripture our final authority?

C.1) Defining Private Judgment: Our final subjective authority

Many discussions regarding authority in the Christian life end here with Scripture, asserting that it is the ultimate authority over our lives. ^[21] However, it needs to be recognized that Scripture must first be accepted as having divine authority, and then convincingly interpreted before it exercises authority in our lives. Accordingly, we suggest that God has delegated final authority in our lives to our private judgment. In other words, no Scripture practically exercises authority in our life until we decide it is Scripture, then what it means to us, then whether or not we are going to obey it.

Therefore, we would define the God-ordained role of private judgment as: the God-given authority delegated to human reason to ultimately decide what we will believe and do. Whether or not to believe or obey a divine revelation is a human decision and these are made by human reason.

In saying that our private judgment is our final authority, several points must be made. First of all, when discussing who or what possesses ultimate authority for what is true, it must be admitted that all such discussions will be circular in nature. As Reformed theologian John Frame has written: “argument is always circular when it is an argument for an ultimate criterion of truth.” ^[22] Without God there would be no truth, and without reason there would be no knowledge or acceptance of truth. ^[23]

Secondly, the God-ordained function of human private judgment was designed to work in conjunction with the Spirit-liberated reason of regenerated humans, not the devil-darkened reason of spiritually dead humans. By Spirit-liberated reason we refer to the fact that through spiritual regeneration, our sinful nature has been replaced by our New Nature as the controlling principle, thereby allowing our mind to process truth without a God-hating nature automatically suppressing it. ^[24] Private judgment concerning divine revelation was never intended to work properly by unregenerated, God-hating people, all of whom the Bible describes as being mentally insane. ^[25]

Thirdly, we must recognize in such a discussion that there is a difference between objective authority and subjective authority. Traffic laws, for example, possess objective authority in that they have the right to exercise control over how we drive. However, such laws, or any authority for that matter, do not practically or subjectively exercise any authority in our lives until we choose to recognize their authority. All beliefs, whether in certain authorities, or otherwise, are subject to the acceptance of our God-given faculties of conscience and reasoning. ^[26]

No real belief or authority can bypass our moral or logical reasoning, not even our belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. No human will believe something that their reason concludes is impossible, ^[27] nor will we willingly or sincerely succumb to authority that our reason deems illegitimate. ^[28] This is not to say that there are not obvious consequences to ignoring a legitimate objective authority, as God Himself is certainly such an authority, and those who refuse to recognize it will surely suffer the consequences.

If someone asks which aspect of authority is more important, we would answer both. While it is our subjective authority that we live by (i.e. private judgment), it will be our objective authority that we will be judged by (i.e. God). Subjective authority is what we accept as our authority and which practically controls our life. Objective authority is what in reality has authority over us and will rightfully judge our life.

For example, we would suggest that Scripture is an objective authority instituted by God, but that it is really our personal acceptance and interpretation of it that operates as our subjective authority. In a sense then, we would suggest that God can be said to be our ultimate objective authority, private judgment our final subjective authority, and Scripture our direct objective authority.

Accordingly, when the choice is ours, each person decides for themselves what objective authorities will become their subjective authorities. And they had better choose correctly. ^[29] Our case for the God-given authority of private judgment applies only to decisions in which we have a real choice. If we choose to jump off of a ten story building to our death, our own judgment (however dysfunctional) determined such a decision and therefore exercised authority over our life. Such is not the case if a bunch of guys pick us up and throw us off the building to our death. In such a matter we have no choice, and our judgment is therefore not our final authority.

Likewise, there are some things in our life that God not only foreknows, but foreordains, and subsequently ensures they happen. For example, the Scriptures suggest that not we, but God decided when, where, and to whom we would be born (cf. Acts 17:26). ^[30]

However, there are many more areas of life in which God does allow us to choose by our own free will, and it is in these that God delegates His authority to our private judgment. What car we buy, what we have for dinner, what spiritual authorities we will be under, how accurately we interpret Scripture, and how consistently we obey Scripture, are normally not issues in which God supernaturally intervenes, controls, and guarantees, but rather are matters in which we have free will and therefore our moral and logical reasoning exercises final subjective authority in them. Obviously, the question of what decisions are dictated directly by God, and which ones He delegates to human choice is an ongoing theological debate. Notice, however, that because our private judgment exercises decision-making authority only in areas in which God allows, that God remains the ultimate objective authority over every aspect of every human life. ^[31]

Against popular opinion then, we suggest that in a great number of even critical areas, God has delegated final subjective authority to private judgment, not to the Spirit or Scripture. Neither the Spirit, nor the Scriptures bypass the gate of our private judgment, and there are many, even critical things, for which God has not granted a definitive divine revelation.

Still, this is more of a philosophical distinction, rather than a practical one because: 1) God gave us the ability to use private judgment, 2) It is the Spirit that liberates our reason in the first place, making it capable of, and attracted to, God-pleasing decisions, and 3) One of those God-pleasing decisions that any truly regenerated and reasonable person will make is to place their lives under the direct authority of Scripture.

Perhaps the proper relationship between the enormous authority God has delegated to our private judgment, and our need to exercise it with virtue, was best expressed by Martin Luther (1483-1546), a champion of private judgment, who famously wrote in his tract, Concerning Christian Liberty:

A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one. ^[32]

This is an apt description of both the authority of our own reason, and the right use of that authority. ^[33]

C.2) Biblical Support for Private Judgment

Admittedly, biblical support for the God-given right and responsibility of private judgment is more implied in many Scriptures, rather than explicitly stated. For example, the eminent Church historian Luke writes: “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). There is an implicit recognition and even praise here for “the Bereans” using their right and responsibility of private judgment even when listening to a foremost Apostle of Jesus Christ. Note as well the implicit rebuke of the “Thessalonians” for evidently not using their private judgment to evaluate apostolic revelation.

Other biblical statements imply the God-given authority of private judgment as well. For example, the Apostle Paul says, “The spiritual man makes judgments [anakrinei] about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment [anakrinetai]” (1 Cor 2:15). Of course, “all things” does not imply perfect judgment in every area of human life, and the Apostle recognizes elsewhere that his personal subjective judgments will be ultimately and accurately judged by God (cf. 1 Cor 4:3-5). Nonetheless, the Apostle is certainly implying that God has given the person with “the Spirit” (cf. v. 14) the ability and therefore responsibility to make judgments on important matters regarding the Christian life, including properly recognizing and interpreting, or to “accept” or “understand” “the things that come from the Spirit of God” (v. 14). While many attempt to limit what the Apostle is saying, his support of the authority of private judgment is clear. ^[34] The Apostle is not only saying that we have the ability to “make judgments about all things” but that this is precisely what we do, because this is how God made us.

The God-ordained place of private judgment is more explicit in Romans 12:2 where the Apostle writes:

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then [with your mind] you will be able to test and approve [dokimazein] what God’s will is—His good, pleasing and perfect will.

The Apostle clearly teaches here that knowing God’s will is not merely a matter of divine revelation, but also human research as the person uses their spiritually renewed mind to “test and approve what God’s will is” (cf. Phil 1:10). It is specifically the need for the mind to “approve” God’s will that is important to our discussion. Of course, the objective will of God is certain and not affected by the opinion of humans in any way. But the subjective will of God for us, the one we will obey, must go through our human reasoning processes, or private judgment.

While Douglas Moo does not directly address the issue of private judgment here at Romans 12:2, he is at least more honest about what the Apostle is saying concerning the delegated authority of the Christian’s mind:

Paul’s teaching about the Christian’s source for finding the moral will of God in this verse deserves attention. Paul has made clear earlier in the letter that the Christian no longer is to look to the OT law as a complete and authoritative guide for conduct (see Rom. 5:20; 6:14, 15; 7:4). What, Paul’s first readers and we ourselves today might ask, is to be put in its place? Paul answers: the renewed mind of the believer. Paul’s confidence in the mind of the Christian is the result of his understanding of the work of the Spirit, who is actively working to effect the renewal in thinking that Paul here assumes (cf. Rom. 8:4-9). ^[35]

Unfortunately, neither conservative Evangelicals, nor postmoderns share “Paul’s confidence in the [Spirit-liberated] mind of the Christian.”

Along these lines, it is instructive to note that the Apostle did not choose the normal words for mere testing or investigation (e.g. peirazō), but a word that includes the idea of the reasoned acceptance of the one evaluating something. Accordingly, the Greek scholar William Mounce notes that the dokimazō word group, “carries the idea of a critical examination of something to determine its genuineness.” ^[36]

W. E. Vine is more helpful, writing:

dokimazō . . . signifies “to prove,” e.g., I John 4:1, more frequently to prove with a view to approval, e.g., Rom. 1:28, KJV, “they did not like to retain God in their knowledge”; RV, “they refused”; marg., “did not approve,” the true meaning. Their refusal was not the outcome of ignorance; they had the power to make a deliberate choice; they willfully disapproved of having God in their knowledge.

In the next chapter, the Apostle speaks of the Jew as “approving things that are excellent;” 2:18. The Jew knew God’s will, and mentally “approved” of the things in which God had instructed him out of the Law.

In Rom. 14:22, he is said to be happy who ‘Judgeth not himself in that which he approveth”; that is to say, in that which he “approves” of after having put the matter to the test. . . .

In Phil. 1:10 the Apostle prays that the saints may “approve the things that are excellent” or “things that differ,” i.e., “approve” after distinguishing and discerning. ^[37]

Better descriptions of the operation and place of private judgment could hardly be found, which again, makes the Apostle’s use of this word in Romans 12:2 an instance of clear biblical support for it.

Perhaps the clearest example of biblical support for our view of private judgment concerns instructions regarding our subjective moral reasoning or conscience. This topic is thoroughly discussed in the next chapter, but here we will summarize some important thoughts on this issue. ^[38]

First, the Apostle Paul recognized that people’s consciences may legitimately differ on certain issues. The principle of private judgment is clearly expressed when the Apostle writes: “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5). The respected Reformed theologian A. W. Pink (1886-1952) remarked regarding this verse:

[This] is the charter of Christian liberty; let none allow himself to be deprived of it. Those words cannot mean less than that every Christian has the God-given right to think for himself, to form his own opinion of what Scripture teaches, and to decide what he considers is most pleasing and honouring unto God.

Note well how emphatic and sweeping are the words of Romans 14:5. “Let every man”; not only the preacher, but the private member too. “Be fully persuaded”; not coerced, nor uncertain, as he will be if, instead of forming his own opinion, he heeds the confusion of tongues now abounding on every side. “In his own mind”; neither blindly following the popular custom nor yielding to the ipse dixit [unproved assertion] of others. ^[39]

It should be noticed that in the passage above, there is no objectively right or wrong answer regarding the “disputable matters” (14:1), and it is up to the individual person to decide. The specific issue that the Apostle is addressing here is probably the Sabbath, and this is the clearest verse in the NT that indicates we are no longer obligated to obey the fourth commandment (cf. Exod 20:8-11). In other words, under the New Covenant, the OT revelation concerning the Sabbath has been set aside and has been delegated to the private judgment of individuals as to whether or not they wish to practice it.

While in this example there really is no right or wrong answer, the Apostle goes on to discuss issues where there is, and yet he still upholds the authority of private judgment. For example, he says, “As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean [with their private judgment], then for him it is unclean” (Rom 14:14). The Apostle recognized that a more informed person will understand that “no food is unclean in itself,” because, “Jesus declared all foods ‘clean’” (Mark 7:19). Nonetheless, he insists that in any such “disputable matters” (14:1), such as food, it is wrong for a person to go against their reason, conscience, and private judgment. Along these lines he writes: “But the man who has doubts [in his own mind] is condemned if he eats [against his own private judgment], because his eating is not from faith [what he has really decided with his private judgment]; and everything that does not come from faith [and goes against our reason and conscience] is sin” (Rom 14:23). God expects us to live according to our private judgment on such issues, even if we are ill-informed, and if we do not, it is sin.

Obviously the Apostle’s teaching here needs to be qualified and does not apply to what we define elsewhere as doctrinal matters that are both clearly taught in Scripture and would bring harm to someone if not obeyed. ^[40] In other words, the freedom the Apostle is encouraging does not apply to things that would clearly be sin, but rather, in areas where there is room for disagreement, or are harmless.

It is interesting to note again, however, that unlike the issue of the Sabbath, there was a real right and wrong answer to the issue of foods. Even though “the weak” had the right to use their private judgment, the truth was that they were being unnecessarily legalistic and not acting in accordance with the teaching of Christ concerning foods (cf. Mark 7:19). There was divine revelation available on the matter of eating foods that “the weak” should have allowed to instruct their convictions and decisions. Such a context for the Apostle’s remarks serves to highlight the personal authority of our private judgment all the more. In other words, one notices that even if a person is actually wrong in their conclusions on a debatable or acceptable matter, that they are expected to obey their own private judgment on the matter (cf. Rom 14:14). ^[41]

The Apostle upholds the sanctity of a person’s private judgment even when they are not acting in line with the truth, and points out that even “God has accepted him” (Rom 14:3). This is because God has delegated final subjective authority to our moral and logical reasoning, and there are grave consequences to violating that authority. In fact, the Apostle makes it clear that while it may not be a sin to reason wrongly, it is an automatic sin to go against one’s private judgment (cf. Rom 14:23) in such debatable or acceptable matters. The sanctity of private judgment is demonstrated as well in the fact that it is sin for anyone to persuade someone to act against their own conscience (cf. Rom 14:13, 15, 20-22) in debatable or acceptable issues. ^[42]

While Romans 14 specifically concerns the moral reasoning of our conscience, the Scriptures also support the authority of the logical reason of our mind in other disputable matters in which we have no specific, authenticated revelation from God. For example, concerning even as important a decision as marriage, the Apostle says:

If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin–this man also does the right thing (1 Cor 7:36-7).

The Apostle does not imply here that God will somehow grant a divine revelation to guide the person in their decision of whether to marry, but rather, he recognizes that the person’s private judgment is to exercise authority over them. ^[43]

Likewise, when the Apostle gave instructions regarding “free will” offerings he said, “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7). In other words, in such matters there is no objectively right or wrong answer, but only a subjective one in which the individual decides what is right or wrong. Here God has clearly delegated final subjective authority to the person’s private judgment.

The responsibility and necessity of private judgment in the vital task of interpreting and teaching Scripture is clearly reflected when the Apostle tells Timothy: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). It is clear that the minister of God must “correctly” handle God’s word. ^[44] The thing to notice is that the Apostle did not assume that “correctly” interpreting, teaching, and applying God’s revelation in Scripture would be automatic. He commands Timothy to work very hard at these things because they all require the diligent, careful, God-fearing use of human reason. The Apostle does not imply that God will somehow supernaturally make up for sloppy thinking with additional divine revelation when it comes to properly handling God’s word, but rather, having our handling of God’s word “approved” by the Author requires one doing “your best” at human research with human reason. ^[45] Accordingly, we have written elsewhere:

While God has supernaturally revealed Scripture, He has not revealed a divinely authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Rather, we read it with our God-given physical faculties, and each statement is a fact that is interpreted by our God-given reason based on common sense principles of interpretation. . . .

This, of course, partly explains why equally Spirit-filled Christians have a wide variety of interpretations of the one revelation of Scripture, instead of a more universal and unanimous interpretation a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit would provide. It is because the Holy Spirit has revealed Scripture that we have only one Gospel of Matthew; it is because the correct understanding of Scripture is a matter of private judgment that we have many different and often conflicting interpretations of the Gospel of Matthew exercising authority over Christians’ lives. ^[46]

Along the same lines, commenting on 2 Timothy 2:15, John MacArthur writes:

That familiar text is a mandate for working hard to make sure we have the true sense of what the Bible means. In the words of B.B. Warfield, “The sense of Scripture is Scripture.” In other words, without the true meaning of Scripture, you don’t really have Scripture at all. There is no magic in the words themselves that gives them power apart from their true meaning. So proper interpretation is crucial especially for those who preach. ^[47]

Accordingly, the Apostle makes it clear that God Himself will hold people accountable for how they interpreted, taught, and applied Scripture, because such things are our choice and a matter of private judgment.

Another biblical concept that implicitly supports the God-given authority and responsibility of private judgment is the “priesthood of all believers.” ^[48] The noted Bible scholar J. B. Lightfoot (1828-1889), described this biblical concept as the idea that:

Each individual member holds personal communion with the Divine Head. To Him immediately he is responsible, and from Him directly he obtains pardon and strength. ^[49]

This concept is best understood in light of how the priesthood worked in the OT. Under the Old Covenant, only certain appointed individuals (i.e. priests) could have “direct” access to God. These individuals were to provide an intermediary role between God and the people. God was not expected to relate directly to anyone other than priests. While some traditions within Christendom have maintained a similar understanding, the NT is very clear that Christ, the eternal High Priest, has opened the way for each child of God to have equal access to their Father in Heaven (cf. 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 4:14-6; 1 Pet 2:5, 9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; Isa 61:6). Accordingly, we stand before God as individuals, ultimately responsible for our actions, including our interpretation of, and obedience to God’s word.

Accordingly, the Apostles had a habit of not simply directing their divinely revealed thoughts to the hierarchical leadership of a church. Rather, the Apostle addresses Romans: “To all [Christians] in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints” (1:7; cf. 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1). The Apostle Paul assumed that all the Christians in Rome had both the ability and responsibility to understand, evaluate, and apply what he wrote. ^[50] This was because they too understood the God-given right and responsibility of private judgment.

C.3) Historical Support for Private Judgment

Several statements from early Church Fathers demonstrate their own belief in the God-ordained authority of private judgment. For example, in a letter To Scapula, Tertullian (c. 160–225) writes:

[I]t is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions. . . . It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion—to which free-will and not force should lead us. ^[51]

While similar statements can be found in the early history of the Church, it is clear that few men in Church history have promoted and demonstrated the God-given authority of private judgment more clearly and consistently than Martin Luther. ^[52] His famous response to his accusers at the Diet of Worms flows out of this very doctrine:

Since then your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to [my interpretation of] the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience [i.e. private judgment] is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me. Amen. ^[53]

In this very statement, Luther gave one of his reasons for denying the authority of “popes and councils”: “they have contradicted each other.” As discussed elsewhere in KOG, God has made our minds such that real contradictions reveal falsehood, ^[54] and here Luther was legitimately acting according to his own reasoning. Luther also made it clear in both this brief statement and his whole life, that he had accepted “Scripture” and “the Word of God” as an objective authority in his life. Yet, as we shall discuss further elsewhere in KOG, that reverence did not deter him from making critical judgments on both the biblical canon ^[55] and the interpretation of the Bible.

Along the same lines, Luther wrote:

Everyone must take care to be certain and be sure of [a] doctrine by himself and must not found his certainty on what other people have determined and concluded. ^[56]

To ascertain and judge about doctrine pertains to all and to every Christian; and in such a way that let him be anathema who injures their right by a single hair. ^[57]

Let me say once and for all that by the grace of God I have most diligently traced all these [Schwabach doctrinal] articles through the Scriptures, have examined them again and again in the light thereof, and have wanted to defend all of them as certainly as I have now defended the sacrament of the altar. I am not drunk or irresponsible. I know what I am saying, and I well realize what this will mean for me before the Last Judgment at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let no one make this out to be a joke or idle talk; I am in dead earnest. ^[58]

Luther said this in reference to his teaching others that the bread and wine in communion mysteriously, but rather literally, becomes (through sacramental union) the actual body and blood of Christ (real presence). For practical purposes, this is obviously rather identical with the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and differs considerably from the understanding of many Evangelical Christians today. Nonetheless, Luther taught it with conviction, used his private judgment to arrive at it, and understood he was accountable to God for it.

Indeed, the Reformation did a great deal to restore the God-ordained authority of private judgment against the oppression of the Roman Church at that time who kept the Scriptures in an obscure language, and did not trust the Christian’s God-given reason for the authentication, interpretation, and application of Scripture. The traditional view of Roman Catholicism may be best summed up by one of its most influential leaders, Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556), a contemporary of Luther’s and founder of the Jesuits, whose rules included:

Always to be ready to obey with mind and heart, setting aside all judgment of one’s own, the true spouse of Jesus Christ, our holy mother, our infallible and orthodox mistress, the Catholic Church, whose authority is exercised over us by the hierarchy. . . . I will believe that the white that I see is black, if the hierarchical Church says so. ^[59]

Even today, the Roman Church denies the God-given authority of private judgment in many ways. Specifically concerning the interpretation of Scripture, the Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1994 states: “the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” ^[60]

Against all of this was Roman Catholicism’s greatest theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), who wrote:

No one should decidedly adhere to an exposition of Scripture that with sure [human] reason is ascertained to be false . . . in order that, from this, Scripture not be derided by the infidels. ^[61]

One of the Protestant Reformers was Richard Hooker (1554-1600), the foremost theologian of the early Anglican Church. In the sixteenth century he wrote a great deal about the importance and authority of reason, as he felt it was being neglected even among Protestant Christians then. We see his epistemological honesty reflected when he remarked concerning the theologians of his own day, “They [actually] ground themselves on human authority [i.e. private judgment], even when they most pretend divine.” ^[62] The same is true of many theologians today who suggest that they begin with Scripture as their authority and somehow bypass human reason. ^[63]

Around the same time in America, the Pilgrims were known for their respect for the God-ordained place of private judgment and it was this conviction that enabled them to be who they were. Accordingly, the historian Cedric Cowing remarks: “The Pilgrims and English dissenters” possessed “a vigorous re-assertion of ‘soul liberty,’ namely the importance of individual consent to an idea or program.” ^[64]

When the influential Tennent brothers were being attacked for training Pastors in the “Log College,” Gilbert Tennent (1704-1764) responded:

We are resolved, by the Grace of God, that no gingle or cant of Order and Government shall gull us out of our Reason and Conscience, or rob us of our Priviledges, as Men, as Christians, as Protestants, and as Presbyterians. ^[65]

In the nineteenth century, the eminent theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878) wrote the following in his Systematic Theology under the title, “The Right of Private Judgment”:

Protestants deny . . . that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in His Church to whose interpretations of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do. . . .

The obligations to faith and obedience are personal. Every man is responsible for his religious faith and his moral conduct. He cannot transfer that responsibility to others, nor can others assume it in his stead. He must answer for himself; and if he must answer for himself, he must judge for himself. It will not avail him in the day of judgment to say that his parents or his Church taught him wrong. He should have listened to God and obeyed Him rather than men. ^[66]

Along the same lines, the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) wrote:

[Christian truth] still has but one external [objective] foundation (principium externum), i.e., Holy Scripture, and similarly only one internal [subjective] foundation (principium internum), i.e., believing reason. . . .

The Roman Church binds the human conscience. By contrast, the Reformation asserted that a church, however venerable, can still err. . . . It [the Church] can bind a person in conscience only to the degree that a person recognizes it as divine and infallible. Whether it indeed agrees with God’s Word no earthly power can decide, but it is for everyone to judge solely for himself or herself. The church can then cast someone out as a heretic, but ultimately that person stands or falls before his or her own master. ^[67]

Few theologians in the history of the Church have thought as hard, and wrote as extensively, on how humans think than another influential Roman Catholic theologian, John Henry Newman (1801-1890). Even though he denied the God-given authority of private judgment at one point in order to affirm the authority of the Roman Catholic Pope, Cardinal Newman admitted elsewhere that:

There is no ultimate test of truth besides the testimony born to truth by the mind itself . . . [Reasoning] is a normal and inevitable characteristic of the mental constitution of a being like man on a stage such as the world . . . The authoritative oracle which is to decide our path . . . is seated in the mind of the individual . . . [When making decisions] whither can we go but to the living intellect. ^[68]

Likewise, contrary to Roman Catholic dogma, Cardinal Newman wrote concerning the authority of the writings of the Church Fathers:

We take them as honest informants, but not as a sufficient authority in themselves, though they are an authority too. If they were to state these very same doctrines, but say, “These are our opinions; we deduced them from Scripture, and they are true,” we might well doubt about receiving them at their hands. We might fairly say, that we had as much right to deduce from Scripture as they had; that deductions of Scripture were mere opinions; that if our deductions agreed with theirs, that would be a happy coincidence, and increase our confidence in them; but if they did not, it could not be helped—we must follow our own light.

Doubtless no man has any right to impose his own deductions upon another, in matters of faith. There is an obvious obligation, indeed, upon the ignorant to submit to those who are better informed; and there is a fitness in the young submitting implicitly for a time to the teaching of their elders; but beyond this, one man’s opinion is not better than another’s. ^[69]

We have already mentioned the Reformed teacher A. W. Pink, who has written one of the best studies of private judgment to be found. He begins his study of the topic by saying:

It is our present design to treat of the right, the necessity, and the duty of each person freely to exercise his reason, conscience and will, especially in matters pertaining to his soul. Every man has the right to think for himself and express or aver his thoughts on political, moral and spiritual matters, without being subject to any civil or ecclesiastical penalty or inconvenience on that account. Conversely, no man is entitled to force his ideas upon others and demand that they subscribe thereto. . . .

Under no conceivable circumstances should any man relinquish the right to think and decide for himself. His reason, will and conscience are Divine gifts, and God holds him responsible for the right use of them. . . .

Not only is private judgment a right which God has conferred upon each of His children, but it is their bounden duty to exercise the same. The Lord requires us to make full use of this privilege, and to employ all lawful and peaceful means for its maintenance. ^[70]

Likewise, Mr. Pink wrote:

There are three basic truths which the battle of the Reformation recovered for Christendom: the sufficiency and supremacy of the Scriptures, the right of private judgment, and justification by faith without the deeds of the law. Each of those was flatly denied by the Papacy, which taught, and still insists, that human “traditions” are of equal authority with God’s Word, that the Romish church alone is qualified to explain the Bible or interpret its contents, and that human merits are necessary in order to [obtain] our acceptance with God. ^[71]

While more recent support for the doctrine of private judgment is more difficult to find, the influential Missionary Alliance preacher A. W. Tozer (1897-1963) said:

The world is for all of us not only what it is; it is what we believe it to be. And a tremendous load of woe or weal rides on the soundness of our interpretation. ^[72]

More recently, Christian philosopher James Sire is honest and right when he comments regarding private judgment:

Is it not the only way any person can act? When one submits to the judgment of another, one is making a private judgment that submitting is right. When one refuses to accede to another-be it parent, friend, spouse, teacher or pope [even Scripture]–one exercises “private judgment.” ^[73]

Likewise, the well known contemporary theologian Thomas Oden has written:

If reasons appear that make it clear that the church’s judgment has become untrustworthy, or its consensual judgment misguided, then the believer has a duty to question that authority. Such a predisposition toward ecclesial trust does not imply an abandonment of reason; rather, it assumes that the community is merely providing the believer with evidence for consideration, reflection, and testing against other forms of knowing. ^[74]

Along the same lines, the Christian apologist Norm Geisler describes our perspective on the relationship between reason and Scripture when he writes:

There is a difference between the way we know reality (epistemology) and what we know about reality (ontology). The “revelation [i.e. Scripture] only” proponents appear to be ontologically correct that God is the ground of all truth. If God exists and is the source of all truth, then of course all truths come from “the top down.” [i.e. objective authority].

However, epistemologically we must start from “the bottom up” [subjective authority] and discover whether or not [God has provided revelation]. In the epistemological sense, then, reason is prior to revelation, since reason must be used to evaluate whether or not the Bible is indeed a revelation. Once this question is settled, then reason cannot be legitimately used to reject any of that revelation. ^[75]

C.4) Defending Private Judgment

While Christians have always believed that God is the ultimate objective authority in life, many different alternatives have been claimed throughout Church history as to how that authority is applied to our lives. The Presbyterian theologian Donald McKim gives a succinct description of some of these:

Broadly speaking, three major approaches to authority have emerged in the church’s history. The first, as represented by Roman Catholicism, appeals to the church as the living custodian of the gospel and the continuing historical manifestation of Christ’s authority on earth. The second, represented by Protestantism, is sola Scriptura; it appeals to the Bible, the written record of the gospel, as the basic authority for the church. A third approach has emerged prominently at various stages in church history and is represented by the Quakers as well as the contemporary charismatic movement, among others; it appeals to the Spirit and [direct] individual revelation as the ultimate form of authority. ^[76]

All of these alternative sources of authority are discussed more fully elsewhere in KOG and, for the most part, rejected.

C.4.a) Against Popes

Roman Catholic Christians believe that God has revealed the correct canon and interpretation of Scripture through the authority of popes and councils, and has provided further authoritative revelation through popes. As discussed elsewhere in Knowing Our God, the primary problems with this approach is the questionable evidence for the acceptance of their Apocrypha (extra books of the Bible) into the canon of Scripture, ^[77] their questionable interpretations of many Scriptures, the immoral lives of many of its popes, and the unbiblical nature of many papal decrees. Therefore, we do not believe the Roman Catholic pope uniquely possesses the authority of Christ on Earth, nor are Roman Catholic traditions equal to Scripture in authority. ^[78]

C.4.b) Against mysticism

Dr. McKim’s mention of the Quakers’ belief in direct extra-biblical divine revelation is, of course, similar to movements particularly within modern Charismaticism. As we discuss at length elsewhere, we believe that Scripture is the all-sufficient divine revelation available to God’s people today and that its divine teachings actually expose many of the modern human teachings concerning extra-biblical revelations to be unbiblical, arrogant, and dangerous. ^[79]

In addition, however, is the ever growing popularity of mega mysticism which expects divine guidance on extra-biblical matters. Precisely because mega mystics do not recognize the God-ordained authority of private judgment with regenerated reason, they mistakenly seek for signs and impressions from God to make amoral decisions such as what job to choose, where to go to school, or who to marry. All of this is not only unbiblical and incredibly common in American Christianity, but damaging to Christians who are put in spiritual bondage because of it. Accordingly, we devote a whole book in KOG to this topic. ^[80]

C.4.c) Against sola Scriptura

Not surprisingly, we are very supportive of Protestantism’s promotion of the authority of Scripture, reflected in its moto: sola Scriptura. Unfortunately, however, such a slogan does not reflect the whole truth. In essence, traditional supporters of sola Scriptura forget that the Bible is not the only thing involved in divine communication, but the process also includes human beings. Forgetting the human element in divine communication, and presuming it to be more direct, leads to the rather foolish, and it would seem, even arrogant statement by the influential Lutheran theologian, and former President and Professor at Concordia Theological Seminary, Francis Pieper (1852-1931) who wrote in his Christian Dogmatics:

Luther and his conscience stood on the bare text of Scripture, excluding all human interpretation. The talk common in our day that all church bodies stand on Scripture and differ only in their interpretation of it is not in accordance with the facts. The Roman Catholic Church does not stand on Scripture, but on the papal interpretation of Scripture. The Reformed Churches, as far as they differ from the Lutheran Church, do not stand on Scripture, but on Zwingli’s, Calvin’s, etc., interpretation of Scripture. The Lutheran Church, however, does not stand on an interpretation of Scripture, but on Scripture itself. This is not a mere assertion. It can be proved by induction in the face of universal contradiction. ^[81]

Contrary to Dr. Peiper, not even Martin Luther “stood on the bare text of Scripture,” nor would Luther himself have said so, as noted above in his admission to the preface of the Schwabach Articles. There is a presumption here that reception of the divine revelation in Scripture is rather direct, infallible, and apparently especially so for Lutherans. Dr. Peiper forgot that there is a human being between us and the Bible.

Dr. Peiper is not alone, however, in his effort to remove the human component from our reception of divine revelation. For example, the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy states:

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source. ^[82]

This reflects only half the truth and, again, ignores that there is a human being between us and God. In fact, Scripture does receive its final subjective authority from a human source.

The subjectivity of our beliefs, resulting from our own reasoning, is often ignored or denied in the hope of making the belief process more supernatural or objective than it really is. Conservative Evangelicals want an epistemological world where there is no risk. God decided differently in that only very few Christians have been gifted as infallible Prophets and Apostles. The rest of us have been expected to use our God-given reason and private judgment to interpret and apply their infallible revelation. ^[83]

In our opinion, it would seem that even the rightly respected Bible teacher John MacArthur overlooks this reality when he writes:

A biblical perspective of truth also necessarily entails the recognition that ultimate truth is an objective reality. Truth exists outside of us and remains the same regardless of how we may perceive it. Truth by definition is as fixed and constant as God is immutable. That is because real truth (what Francis Schaeffer called “true truth”) is the unchanged and unchanging expression of who God is; it is not our own personal and arbitrary interpretation of reality.

Amazingly, Christians in our generation need to be reminded of these things. Truth is never determined by looking at God’s Word and asking, “What does this mean to me?” Whenever I hear someone talk like that, I’m inclined to ask, “What did the Bible mean before you existed? What does God mean by what He says?” Those are the proper questions to be asking. Truth and meaning are not determined by our intuition, experience, or desire. The true meaning of Scripture–or anything else, for that matter-has already been determined and fixed by the mind of God. The task of an interpreter is to discern that meaning. And proper interpretation must precede application. ^[84]

There is much good truth here, but Dr. MacArthur is perhaps unintentionally imprecise about the difference between objective and subjective authority. By the end of his statement, however, he recognizes that “an interpreter” must “discern” the “meaning” of Scripture. Therefore, Dr. MacArthur would seem wrong to state a few sentences earlier: “Truth is never determined by looking at God’s Word and asking, “What does this mean to me?”” On the contrary, that is the only way any Christian can determine what the truth is. We understand Dr. MacArthur’s desire to guard the Church against the unbiblical and dangerous extremes of postmodernism, but it will not help to deny the God-ordained function of private judgment in the name of sola Scriptura.

As discussed further in chapter 3.B, most proponents of sola Scriptura insist that the canonical limits of Scripture are “self-authenticating.” We would humbly suggest that nothing in all of Creation is subjectively “self-attested” without objective evidence evaluated by our private judgment. Not even God is self-authenticating without objective evidence, but rather provides an abundance of such evidence for His existence (cf. Rom 1:18-20). Likewise, Jesus Christ Himself said, “If I testify about Myself [i.e. self-authentication without objective evidence], My testimony is not valid” (John 5:31; cf. vs. 32-37). For the Apostle John, not even God the Holy Spirit was self-authenticating (cf. 1 John 4:1-3).

What else in all Creation would theologians claim is self-authenticating without objective evidence that needs to be evaluated and accepted by our private judgment in order to be properly believed? In the end, a merely subjective self-authentication becomes no authentication at all, which is a fairly scary position to put the Word of God in. Accordingly, John Locke ridiculed those who maintained that a proposition “is a revelation [simply] because they firmly believe it” and “believe it because it is a revelation.” ^[85]

More specifically, anything that we are to believe, or will believe, possesses evidence and reason for that belief. Not even the fact that 1+1=2 is self-authenticating without objective evidence, but rather can be demonstrated. Likewise, no one merely accepts by some “leap of faith” that bypasses reason, that the Bible is the word of God. Rather, anyone who has any confidence that the Bible is from God has objective reasons and evidence, evaluated and accepted by their private judgment, on which their conviction is based.

Theologians can debate all they want to as to whether or not our reason is our final subjective authority, but the fact remains that in practice it is, and God intended it to be so. There is a need to admit as James Sire wrote above: “Is it not the only way any person can act?” Human private judgment reflects both reality on Earth (i.e. this is how it really is), and in Heaven (i.e. we will be judged this way), because as the Apostle says, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one [individually] may receive what is due him for the things done [and therefore decided] while in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Cor 5:10).

Both conservative Evangelicals and postmoderns are far too skeptical of the ability of Christians to sufficiently process divine revelation. What they seem to forget is that God created us with this ability and we are therefore accountable to do so. Like flowers which have been divinely designed to reliably receive the sun’s rays and properly process it for nourishment through photosynthesis, we were re-created to receive God’s word, and properly process it for our enlightenment and encouragement through Spirit-liberated reason. God re-created us for a relationship with Him which requires accurate and trustworthy communication and understanding, and we have therefore been given such abilities. While many proponents of sola Scriptura want to leave humans and their God-given reason and right of private judgment out of the process of divine revelation, God simply did not create things to be so.

Of course, as we discuss at length elsewhere, the devil-darkened reason of unregenerate humanity is quite unreliable concerning especially spiritual matters. But we are wrong to have the same skepticism concerning the regenerated Christian’s Spirit-liberated reason, which was given to us precisely so that we may properly interpret Scripture. And we should not forget that God knows that even devil-darkened reason has correctly interpreted the revelation of Creation, even if satan has not allowed its proper application. ^[86]

C.4.d) Against the “testimony” & “illumination” of the Spirit

Historically, when Protestants are more careful concerning epistemological issues surrounding divine revelation they have recognized that sola Scriptura is inadequate in itself, and that the human element must be explained. Accordingly, the brilliant John Calvin (1509-1564) introduced the idea of a “testimony” or “illumination” of the Spirit, in which He is personally and continually guiding us in properly recognizing and interpreting Scripture. The Presbyterian theologian Donald Bloesch reflects this view when he writes: “The Bible is the Word of God in all that it teaches, though this teaching is not immediately self-evident but must be unveiled by the Spirit.” ^[87] The impression here is that our Spirit-liberated reason is not adequate to understand the full meaning of Scripture, but that a separate, additional revelation from the Spirit is necessary.

To the contrary, we would like to emphasize that Spirit-liberated reason is the most important tool for accurately interpreting and applying God’s revelation in Scripture. We suggest that some supposed “illumination of the Sprit” should better be understood as Spirit-liberated reason. ^[88] In other words, the Spirit is not in the business of constantly telling us how to interpret Scripture, but rather, God has delegated such authority to a Christian’s Spirit-liberated reason which has already been “fixed” by the Holy Spirit in spiritual regeneration enabling it to now properly interpret, apply, adore, and obey Scripture. ^[89]

Unfortunately, the approach of John Calvin intentionally bypasses the God-ordained place and God-given ability of Spirit-liberated reason, and essentially bases the ultimate foundation of our certainty concerning divine revelation in some sort of subjective feeling that is nowhere supported by Scripture. ^[90] Practically speaking, proponents of such an approach have great difficulty in explaining why equally sincere and Spirit-filled Christians differ so widely in their interpretations of Scripture, if we are indeed being guided by the Spirit in them. Nonetheless, this remains a primary epistemological approach to divine revelation, and all apparently to deny the place of human reason and private judgment.

Obviously, these issues are important and debated topics, and while we cannot discuss them further here, we devote a considerable amount of discussion to them in the following chapters. ^[91] Nonetheless, in our discussion of the “God-ordained chain of authority” in our lives, we contend that our God-given right and responsibility of private judgment exercises final subjective authority in our lives. ^[92]

C.4.e) Against Liberalism

It is understandable that the many unreasonable conclusions of unregenerated rationalists who have practiced and promoted the various kinds of literary criticism on the Bible have led many to disparage the God-given place of reason. But again, there needs to be a distinction made between those who engage in such criticism with God-honoring Spirit-liberated reason, and those who do not.

First of all, let it be clear that any “Bible scholar” who claims that miracles are impossible, has obviously not had the greatest miracle of spiritual rebirth occur in their own life. It should not surprise us then that such spiritually blind men, who only possess devil-darkened reason, will arrive at the foolish, arrogant, and pagan conclusions they are infamous for. Therefore, we must not let the “Bad B’s” of liberal biblical criticism (i.e. F. C. Baur [1792-1860], F. C. Burkitt [1864-1935], Rudolph Bultmann [1884-1976], Emil Brunner [1889-1986], G. Bornkamm [1905-1990], James Barr [1924-2006], and to some extent Karl Barth [1886-1968]) keep us from approaching the Bible with reason. If it truly is divine revelation then it can withstand the humble, reverent evaluation of Spirit-liberated reason, and will be better understood in the process.

The influential Presbyterian theologian Henry B. Smith described both the right and wrong use of reason in this context when he wrote:

Human reason may indeed inquire whether the voice which speaks be delusive or divine; it may test the truth of revelation on historical grounds; it may ask whether its doctrines be in harmony with, or contradictory to moral truth . . . but having answered such preliminary inquiries, it has no shadow of a right to go to this revelation and dictate to it what it shall tell us of God’s nature, or what shall be the method of the revelation or of the redemption, any more than it has a right to go to that other reality, nature, and prescribe its laws and limit its elements. In both cases man is to study and to learn. ^[93]

While we do not condone unregenerated rationalism, we do want to recognize the God-given place of Spirit-liberated reason and private judgment. These things were intended to go together. As stated above, private judgment concerning divine revelation was never intended to work properly for unregenerated people, which describes theological Liberalism to a greater extent than they would admit. ^[94]

C.4.f) Against Postmodernism

Some may be wary of promoting the God-given authority of private judgment because of its apparent similarities to postmodern philosophy. Obviously, we would affirm the postmodern reminder that there is a human being between us and God (and the Bible) and no one is perfectly objective this side of Heaven. Nonetheless, postmodern philosophers promote an atheistic religion and are aptly described as “the fool [who] says in his heart ‘there is no God’” (Ps 14:1), by denying the existence of any objective truth. Dr. MacArthur describes the epistemological skepticism of this philosophy when he writes:

Postmodernism suggests that if objective truth exists, it cannot be known objectively or with any degree of certainty. That is because (according to postmodernists), the subjectivity of the human mind makes knowledge of objective truth impossible. So it is useless to think of truth in objective terms. Objectivity is an illusion. Nothing is certain, and the thoughtful person will never speak with too much conviction about anything. Strong convictions about any point of truth are judged supremely arrogant and hopelessly naive. Everyone is entitled to his own truth. ^[95]

While we admit that, for example, the proper interpretation of Scripture is not as direct and automatic as many Evangelicals claim, neither is it as precarious as postmoderns claim. The proper balance between these two extremes is a proper understanding of the God-ordained place of private judgment through Spirit-liberated reason.

First, postmoderns ignore the epistemological environment that God has created. They act as if God does not want a relationship with us, but rather wants to trick us, and make it difficult to understand Him. Or they deny that relationships require reliable communication at all. Or they speak as if all Christians have unregenerated devil-darkened reason, and seem to deny the difference that Spirit-liberated reason makes in understanding divine revelation. We know differently, and we know that God has created Scripture with a level of clarity, and Spirit-liberated reason with a level of ability, all to ensure sufficient communication in order to have a relationship with His children based on truth and certainty. God’s design of both divine revelation and human reason deny the epistemological uncertainty that postmoderns desire.

Secondly, postmoderns assume that all human bias is bad, and automatically prohibits us from properly and confidently communicating with others including God. On the contrary, as we discuss further elsewhere, there is nothing automatically wrong with bias. What matters is having the right bias, and by virtue of spiritual conversion, the Christian is in a significantly superior position when it comes to properly assessing data, whether it comes by revelation (i.e. Scripture) or research (i.e. science). ^[96]

Thirdly, postmoderns deny their God-given responsibility to sufficiently understand God’s revelation, acting as if their assumed impossibility of doing so exonerates them from God’s expectations. God, like any father, intended His word to be correctly understood by His children and expects us to do so. There is an implicit divine command to understand it correctly, or else He would never provide it. And we will not follow the postmodern nonsense that God the Father has multiple meanings for everything He says. On the contrary, He does not make up for our mistaken multiple understandings by intending multiple meanings in what He said.

This is not to say that God expects perfection in our understanding of His revelation. But postmoderns take advantage of God’s gracious attitude and provision for our human limitations, and treat them as a license to deny any responsibility to properly interpret Scripture. On the contrary, the inability of constant God-like perfection in our understanding of Scripture does not mean God does not intend for us to pursue it with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. We are commanded to love God in this very way, and our inability to consistently do so should not lead us to abandon our best efforts to do so.

This is why the Apostle Paul instructed Timothy to “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly [“accurately” NASB] handles the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). But postmoderns seem to claim they need not do even this, which unfortunately will result in them being “ashamed” at the lackadaisical effort they condone when it comes to interpreting Scripture. It is not automatically sinful to be wrong about your interpretation of Scripture. It is automatically sinful not to do your diligent, humble, God-fearing best to interpret Scripture. Accordingly, postmodern “Christianity” is quite sinful.

Finally, perhaps the most important truth that separates our view of private judgment from postmodern philosophy is that God will indeed objectively and accurately judge our use of this God-given right and responsibility. In other words, against the postmoderns, we and the Bible insist that there is an ultimate objective authority that we will be judged by. Accordingly, Erwin Lutzer, longtime Bible teacher at Moody Bible Church, rightly criticizes postmodern thinking when he says, “We have gone from the belief that everyone has a right to his own opinion (i.e. private judgment), to the absurd notion that every opinion is equally right (postmodernism).” ^[97] No, not every opinion is right, and God will one day reveal that it was important that we were right.

Accordingly, in Romans 1:18-22, the Apostle makes it clear that unregenerate humans will be held accountable for their faulty judgment concerning Creation. In the end, it does not matter whether we think our reasons for our decisions are adequate, but whether God thinks our reasons are adequate!

This is particularly illustrated in Romans 14. As discussed above, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that God has delegated final subjective authority to human private judgment in matters in which we have a choice, even as to how we would interpret the NT teaching on unclean foods. Nonetheless, he makes it equally clear we will be held accountable by God for those choices. He writes what postmoderns apparently would like to forget: “We will all stand before God’s judgment seat . . . each of us will give an account of himself to God” for how we used the authority delegated to our private judgment. (Rom 14:10, 12). There are moral and eternal consequences to how faithfully, diligently, humbly, and accurately we use our private judgment.

This is why a few verses later, the Apostle writes:

The faith [convictions] that you have, have as your own conviction before [enōpion: lit. “in sight of”] God. Blessed are those who have no reason to condemn [krinōn ^[98]] themselves [i.e. sin] because of what they approve [with their private judgment]. But those who have doubts [because they are going against their private judgment] are condemned [katakekritai] if they eat, because they do not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith [or in accordance with their legitimate private judgment] is sin. (Rom 14:22-23 NRSV ^[99]) ^[100]

The Apostle reminds us again of the tremendous subjective authority he has granted our private judgment, such that to go against it in an acceptable matter “is sin.” But whenever God delegates any of His authority (as He does in private judgment), He holds its recipient accountable for the proper use of it (cf. Heb 13:17). Therefore, the Apostle is warning the Roman Christians that they must be careful “of what they approve” with the private judgment of their own conscience because we will all eventually give an account to God for what we decided.

Therefore, subjective reasoning in the light of God’s certain and objective judgment not only maintains God as the ultimate authority, but distinguishes the Christian doctrine of the God-given authority of private judgment from pagan postmodernism. The Spirit-liberated reason of a Christian acknowledges that there is both a logical and moral right and wrong and that the omniscient and perfect God is the arbiter of both. The Apostle essentially says the same thing when he writes:

Now it is required that those who have been given a trust [like private judgment] must prove faithful. I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience [moral private judgment] is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord Who [ultimately, objectively, accurately] judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. (1 Cor 4:2-5)

The Apostle recognized his dependence on his subjective authority of “conscience” but knew he was accountable ultimately to God.

Therefore, not all human opinions are equal in value, but rather, must be evaluated based on adequately authenticated divine revelation, which the Christian knows he has in Scripture. As the writer of Ecclesiastes says: “Follow the ways of your heart and whatever your eyes see, but know that for all these things God will bring you to judgment” (Eccl 11:9). This includes how we use our private judgment, a fact that would sober and humble postmodern philosophers if they understood it.

The popularity of postmodern philosophy among pagans is no reason to deny the God-given place of human reason or the God-ordained foundational subjective authority of human private judgment. In private judgment God desired to give humanity a great gift, to have the freedom to make God-pleasing choices instead of be robots. The use of our private judgment was something that was to enable us to be spiritual adults instead of infants. ^[101] It was designed to be something we could be rewarded for the proper use of.

In return for this divine gift, postmoderns have perverted it, taking license to approve any opinion they wish. In response to this responsibility, postmoderns have rebelled, claiming they are not able to faithfully fulfill its purposes. The Ultimate Objective Authority will hold them accountable for all of this.

In the end then, we affirm that God has granted foundational subjective authority to our reason, and that ultimately it is our guide in life, through which the Scriptures and the Spirit must work in order to lead us. We believe as well that such an emphasis on the authority of our God-given reason will help God’s people take more responsibility for using it as God intended. Rather than resulting in indifferent arrogance, promoting the right and responsibility and eventual accountability of our private judgment will encourage sincere humility. We would finally affirm that there may be a greater number of salvations and spiritual revival in “Christian” cults, Roman Catholicism, and mainline Protestantism if private judgment were valued and exercised more. It was a foundation of the first Reformation, and will be of any subsequent one as well. ^[102]

Pastoral Practices

• We are again struck with the tremendous responsibility we have to correctly interpret and teach Scripture. If, in fact, God’s people in the New Covenant were to primarily, individually, and privately get their spiritual instruction directly from Scripture, as is emphasized in American Christianity, why did He give the Church Teachers (cf. Eph 4:11-16)? In discussions of the God-ordained place of private judgment, we must not exclude the God-ordained place of Teachers in the Church.

D) The God-given Authentication of Authority: God-like deeds before God-like demands

Thankfully, God does not expect humans to recognize or respect divine revelation without divine authentication. One is reminded of Gideon who after receiving a divine mandate from an Angel, repeatedly asked for confirmation of the source of the message (cf. Judg 6). And as we demonstrate elsewhere, God was never offended in the least with Gideon’s requests, and even provided an additional miraculous authentication of the revelation that Gideon didn’t ask for (cf. Judg 7:9-16). ^[103] Like Gideon, we are not questioning God’s authority, but simply where that authority can be found. In other words, the suggestion that our reason must be used to recognize and interpret revelation from God does not usurp the authority of God.

For example, one may think of a captain in the army who receives written orders that claim to be from his General, commanding him to advance against the enemy and risk the lives of his men. No one would question the captain’s right and even responsibility to authenticate such a message, especially in a time of war when the enemy is constantly working to deceive (cf. 2 Cor 11:14). Far from showing disrespect for the authentic commands of his superior, the captain’s inquiry would actually show a great regard for that authority.

If God does in fact ultimately leave the decision to us as to whom or what will exercise authority in our lives, then it is important to ask what credentials do the above authorities in the “divine chain of command” possess in order to rightfully demand and expect our obedience? Briefly stated, God has ordained that God-like deeds are the required authentication of anyone or anything claiming God-like authority. ^[104]

For example, we read in Romans:

What may be known about God [from Creation] is plain . . . because God has made it plain . . . For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–His eternal power and divine nature [and right of authority]–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse [for not recognizing that authority]. (Rom 1:19-20)

The reason that the Creator rightfully demands our obedience is that He has clearly demonstrated His superiority over us through the God-like things He has done and that we, “have . . . clearly seen.” In other words, not even the Creator expects us to grant Him God-like authority over our lives, unless He has demonstrated God-like deeds. The Creator has clearly done so, and we are therefore, “without excuse” to not grant Him God-like authority over our lives. Because God has made our private judgment our final subjective authority, He abundantly authenticates His ultimate objective authority to our Spirit-liberated reason through His Creation.

Such is the case with Jesus Christ as well. He did not expect someone to grant Him God-like authority without believing He had done God-like deeds. Christ plainly described His divine credentials when He said:

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in Me? The words I say to you are not just My own. Rather, it is the Father, living in Me, Who is doing His work.  Believe Me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me [and that He possessed the Father’s authority]; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves (John 14:10-11; cf. 5:36).

The first Christians believed that Christ’s God-like deeds authenticated His God-like authority, as demonstrated when the Apostle Peter says, “Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited [“publicly endorsed” NLT] by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22). Christ’s miraculous abilities were specifically to authenticate His divine authority to God’s people. Nicodemus told Christ, “Rabbi, we know You are a Teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs You are doing if God were not with him” (John 3:2).

When the King was asked if He was the Christ, and worthy of God-like authority, He said, “The miracles I do in My Father’s name speak for Me” (John 10:25). When the Pharisees questioned the magnitude and source of Christ’s authority He replied, “so that you may know that the Son of Man has [God-like] authority on Earth to forgive sins . . .” Then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home” (Matt 9:6). This God-like deed proved His God-like authority.

Christ told the Pharisees that the ultimate authentication of His authority would be His resurrection (cf. John 2:19; Matt 12:38-40). Likewise, the Apostle Paul, in the context of an evangelistic message, said to the Athenians: “For He [God] has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man [Christ] He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him [Christ] from the dead” (Acts 17:31).

It should be remembered that God does not deem it necessary to actually personally observe a divine messenger performing a miracle in order for them to exercise authority over our life. The Apostle John recorded the miracles of the King so that His authority could be authenticated to future generations through testimony. ^[105] Accordingly, the Apostle writes:

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31).

In addition, all born again Christians have a personal miracle from Jesus Christ that undeniably authenticates the authority of Him and His Gospel over us. This is, of course, the miracle of “rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Tit 3:5). Therefore, it is the certainty we have of both Christ’s past physical resurrection and our present spiritual resurrection that have authenticated Christ’s God-like authority beyond doubt. ^[106]

How then do we know that this same authority was passed on to the Apostles and Prophets as they claim? Once again, God authenticated their God-like authority by giving them the ability to perform God-like deeds. Accordingly, the King told His disciples, “As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of Heaven is near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons” (Matt 10:7-8; cf. Mark 6:12; Luke 9:1, 6; 10:8). Contrary to charismaticism, providing new divine revelation that is to be believed and obeyed will always be accompanied by miraculous deeds so that people will judge and recognize the revelation is from God. ^[107]

From the very beginning of God’s communication with His people, God made it clear that private judgment, through human reason, was to dictate and discern whether or not something was divine revelation. We read of both the authority of Prophets and their recognition when God says:

[A] Prophet who presumes to speak in My name anything I have not commanded him to say . . . must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If [a prediction] a Prophet proclaims in the name [and authority] of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That Prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him [or believe his words or writings represent the word of God]. (Deut 18:20-22; cf. 13:1-3)

Again, it is clear that God did not expect His people to grant God-like authority to someone unless they could miraculously authenticate themselves. In the case of His Prophets, they were given the ability to predict the future with perfect accuracy in ways that normally only God could do. This was not only true of OT Prophets, but NT Prophets as well, such as Agabus, who is recorded twice as having miraculously predicted the future in order to authenticate himself as a God-sent Prophet (cf. Acts 11:28; 21:10-11, 27ff). ^[108] Therefore we see again that God grants God-like abilities to someone who is to exercise God-like authority over our lives.

The same was obviously true of Christ’s Apostles. They exercise Christ-like authority over us and God gave them Christ-like abilities in order to authenticate them. For example, Luke records that, “Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there [in Iconium], speaking boldly for the Lord, Who confirmed the message of His grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders” (Acts 14:3; cf. 15:12; 19:10-12).

When Paul is defending His right to exercise apostolic authority over the Corinthian Christians he tells them:

Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody. The signs of a true Apostle [and someone with Christ-like authority] were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles. (2 Cor 12:11-12 NASB; cf. Rom 15:18-19)

The writer to the Hebrews summarizes our view when we read:

This [authoritative revelation of the New Covenant] salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will. (Heb 2:3-4)

It is the God-like authentication of the Prophets and Apostles that grants their writings in the Scriptures God-like authority. We are not expected to give such authority to documents written merely by good men. ^[109]

In fact, contrary to charismaticism, no one in Scripture had God-given miracle working abilities apart from the need to be authenticated as a source of new extra-biblical divine revelation for all to believe and obey. The biblical record is clear: God does not grant a person a divine healing ministry unless they also have a divine “revealing” ministry. We have dealt with objections to this view elsewhere. ^[110]

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our Father, we thank you that Someone as wonderful as You, is the ultimate authority in the Universe. We desire no other god, and pray that your rightful authority over our lives would invade every area of our life. We want to live as if we have a King, not as if we are our own king. Amen.

Gauging Your Grasp

1. How would you define authority?
2. What does the “God-ordained chain of authority” suggested here consist of?
3. What are verses of Scripture given to support these sources of authority?
4. What is the difference between objective authority and subjective authority? How does this relate to the relationship between God and our private judgment?
5. Why is God our ultimate objective authority?
6. Why do we suggest that the Scriptures, rather than God, is our direct objective authority?
7. How do we define the God-ordained authority of private judgment?
8. Why are we suggesting that human private judgment is our final subjective authority?
9. What is the difference between objective authority and subjective authority? How does this relate to the relationship between God and our private judgment?
10. What are some exceptions to the suggestion that our private judgment exercises final authority over our life?
11. If private judgment is indeed our final subjective authority in this life, how can we claim that God maintains His ultimate objective authority?
12. How has God authenticated each link in His “chain of authority”?
13. Why does God authenticate each link in His “chain of authority”?
14. Are there parts of the “God-ordained chain of authority” that you particularly have questions about? What are they?

Recommended Reading

• The remainder of Book 3 of Knowing Our God: Biblical Authority.
• Arthur W. Pink, “Private Judgment,” in Practical Christianity (Baker, 1974), 169-170.

Publications & Particulars

1. J. I. Packer, “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God (Eerdmans, 1958), 42. ↑

2. Bernard Ramm, The Pattern of Authority (Eerdmans, 1957), 10. ↑

3. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Frederick C. Mish, ed. (Merriam-Webster, 1986), 117. ↑

4. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., (Baker, 1998) 268. ↑

5. Donald Bloesch, A Theology of Word & Spirit (InterVarsity Press, 1992), 185. ↑

6. J. I. Packer in “The Reconstitution of Authority,” in Crux, Vol. 18, no. 4 (Dec 1982), p. 2. ↑

7. J. I. Packer, Truth & Power (Harold Shaw, 1996), 14- 15. ↑

8. Ibid., 17. ↑

9. Donald McKim gives a good overview of biblical references to the divine chain of authority:

   In the New Testament the term exousia is used most significantly in relation to God, who is completely free to act and is the only true source of all other authority and power (Luke 12:5; Jude 25). God is both creator and ruler of the universe. God controls the forces of both nature and history in order to carry out the divine plan and purpose (Luke 1:35; Rom. 9:21; Rev. 19:1).

   The New Testament also recognizes subservient powers and authorities (1 Cor. 15:24; 1 Peter 3:22; Eph. 1:21). Civil authority may be exercised through kings, magistrates, priests, and stewards (Luke 7:8; Mark 13:34; Acts 9:14; Rom. 13:1-3; Titus 3:1). Yet all secondary powers-including evil ‘principalities and powers’ (Rom. 8:38; cf. John 19:10-1l)-have only the power permitted them by God (cf. Rev. 2:10; 1 John 4:1-6). Ultimate authority always belongs to God (Rom. 13:1).

   In Jesus Christ, however, the disclosure of God’s authority becomes clear. Jesus taught as one with authority (Mark 1:22). His authority came from himself (Matt. 5) and extended to forgiving sins (Mark 2:10), casting out demons (Mark 3:15), teaching (Matt. 7:29), and judging (John 5:27). This authority was granted by God (John 5:30) to be used by Jesus (John 10:18; Rev. 12:10ff.). In the defeat of Satan, Christ’s power and authority is acknowledged (Luke 4:1-13, esp. vs. 6; 1 John 5:19). Christ’s kingdom is universal and eternal (2 Peter 1: 11; cf. Matt. 28:18).

   In some respects Jesus transferred his authority to his disciples, including the authority to forgive sins (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23), to heal diseases (Luke 9:1), and to cast out demons (Mark 6:7). They are also authorized to proclaim the kingdom of God that is to come (Matt. 10:7-8; Mark 3:15; 6:7). Those who hear his disciples hear Jesus (Luke 10:16; cf. Matt, 10:40; John 17:18; 20:21).

   Later the Apostles believe their own authority to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ as ‘witnesses’ (Acts 1:8) comes from Jesus himself (2 Cor. 10:8; cf. Matt. 10:1; Mark 115; 2 Thess. 3:9). This apostolic authority is a derivative authority that is not absolute or inherent; it has its origin in Christ rather than in the Apostles themselves. Apostolic authority, including the right to preach and teach, is based on God’s revelation in Jesus Christ (see Gal. 1:11-16).

   The Apostle Paul recognizes the function of teaching and the teacher as one of the gifts given to the church (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 12:28) and thus one of the ways in which, through the work of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 123; John 15:26-27), the continuing presence and authority of Jesus Christ is experienced in the Christian churches.’ (Theological Turning Points [Knox, 1988], 97-8) ↑

10. Carl F. H. Henry, “The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, (Zondervan, 1979), 9. ↑

11. For further discussion of the authority of Jesus Christ see section 8.4.A.1. ↑

12. For further discussion of the authority of biblical Apostles section 8.4.A. ↑

13. It is probable that this is a veiled prediction of Christ, however, this same authority resided in all biblical Prophets. ↑

14. For further discussion of the authority of biblical Prophets see chapters 9.4 and 9.6. ↑

15. For a biblical evaluation of the claim in modern prophetism to the gift of prophecy see chapters 9.1-3. ↑

16. For further discussion regarding the fact that Christ does not exercise authority over us directly, but indirectly through Scripture, see section 7.7.C. ↑

17. For further discussion of the writing of divine revelation in Scripture see section 7.7.A. ↑

18. For further discussion of the supreme authority of Scripture see chapter 7.8. ↑

19. For further discussion regarding the place of human authorities in our lives as a source of the divine revelation of God’s will see chapter 7.14. ↑

20. Packer, Truth & Power, 44. ↑

21. A good example of this is John Frame from Westminster, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), in which the author as a presuppositionalist, presupposes, and skips directly to the fact that Scripture is our ultimate authority. Another example is the Adventist theologian Norman Gulley, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena (Andrews University, 2003). For further discussion see chapter 3.3. ↑

22. John Frame in Five Views on Apologetics, 197. ↑

23. William Abraham remarks that, “One way to envisage the [Karl] Barthian [neo-orthodox] project is to see it as a search for that criterion of truth which is internal to theology itself.” (Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to Feminism [Clarendon Press, 1998], 367). That is a good description of what we are attempting in these chapters as well, but instead of that criterion being subjective feelings as it was for Barth and Reformed theologians, we believe it to be subjective Spirit-liberated reasoning upon objective data.

    For further discussion on the God-ordained place of human reason for processing divine revelation see chapter 3.3; section 2.4.F. ↑

24. The term devil-darkened reason reflects the Apostle’s description of unregenerated humans as “darkened in their understanding” (Eph 4:18) by “the god of this age [who] has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, Who is the image of God” (2 Cor 4:4). Christians however have been “made new in the spirit of [our] mind” (Eph 4:20), giving us alone the ability to receive and understand spiritual truth (cf. 1 Cor 2:12-14). For further discussion of the epistemological differences between these human states see chapters 4.12-16. ↑

25. For further on the mental insanity of unregenerated humanity see chapters 4.12-15. ↑

26. Some will understandably suggest that by recognizing the subjective authority of reason, we are dethroning God. In response, Christian philosopher Gordon H. Clark (1902-1985) wrote:

    Systematic theologians are wary of any proposal that would make an abstract principle superior to God. . . . The law of contradiction is not to be taken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking. (Religion, Reason, and Revelation [Presbyterian & Reformed, 1961], 67)

    Likewise, E. J. Carnell addresses the claim that, “If we rest only in the reasonable, reason replaces God.” Carnell rightly responds, “Not so. Reason is the test for truth. It detects truth; it does not manufacture it. Truth is always superior to the logic which establishes it.” (An Introduction to Christian Apologetics [Eerdmans, 1956] , 86). And God is always superior to logic as well because He established it.

    Finally, David Basinger remarks as well, “To view things this way [the importance of reason] is not to give human reason preeminence over revelation or faith. It is simply to take a certain position on the essential categories of thought with which God made us.” (“Biblical Paradox: Does Revelation Challenge Logic?” JETS 30:2 (June 1987), 213.)

    For further defense of the God-ordained authority of private judgment and human reason see chapters 3.2-3. ↑

27. Saying that reason will not accept the impossible is related to saying that God did not make us to believe the contradictory. For example, if we deem the Trinity as a contradictory concept as rationalists do, then we should not and cannot believe it. For further discussion of this see chapter 2.9. ↑

28. Accordingly, we make the case elsewhere that biblical faith is founded on objective evidence, although not the direct kind, but evidence nonetheless. For further discussion see chapters 6.12-14. ↑

29. Two common, but illegitimate claims can be dealt with here. First, even those who would claim that they themselves are their own authority, have chosen an objective authority. In other words, while someone might claim that they have not accepted any authority outside of themselves, in reality they have. This is because they have been persuaded by some objective evidence outside of themselves to “trust themselves” rather than someone or something else. They have their reasons, and the source of those reasons has operated as an objective authority in their life. On the other hand, those who would claim that their authority is uniquely objective, cannot dismiss the subjectivity of their decision of what or who will exercise authority in their life. ↑

30. For further discussion of the predestined will of God see section 7.15.B.1. ↑

31. This is not the place to suggest where the line should be drawn regarding what choices God makes for us and what choices we make ourselves. The issue is really a matter of determining what is under what we call God’s controlling sovereignty and His consenting sovereignty. The former are things which God directly dictates, causes, controls, and guarantees, the latter are things that He simply allows because they do not alter His ultimate plans.

    For example, Acts 17:26 indicates that God dictated, caused, controlled, and guaranteed when, where, and to whom we would be born, all of which would be under His controlling sovereignty. However, God gives us the freedom to sin against His perfect will, coming under His consenting sovereignty. Even so, God will not allow our freedom, or something occurring under His consenting sovereignty, to thwart His ultimate purposes. Not only is He big enough to know and plan for the choices we make, He is big enough to alter our choices so that while we may not act according to His perfect will, we will act according to His perfect plan.

    Similar concepts are discussed under the topics of what we call God’s predestined, prescribed, and permissive wills in section 7.15.B. ↑

32. Martin Luther, Concerning Christian Liberty, Part 2. (online at http//www.iclnet.org) ↑

33. For further discussion of the critical distinction between objective and subjective authority and examples in modern theology of confusing the two, see chapter 3.3. ↑

34. Concerning 1 Corinthians 2:15, several commentators suggest that the Apostle is merely saying that a believer cannot be properly judged by an unbeliever in spiritual matters (cf. John MacArthur, Commentary, in. loc.), but the Greek text reflects the idea that a believer cannot be judged by anyone in spiritual matters (cf C. K, Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hendricksen, 2000), 78.

    Most commentators are so busy limiting and disclaiming what Paul’s statement means, that they ignore the full ramifications of what he is saying (cf. Fee, 118-19; Robertson and Plummer, 50). Anthony Thiselton even suggests that 1 Corinthians 2:15 should be understood as something the arrogant Corinthians were saying instead of accepting that Paul actually said it (cf. p. 272)

    Older, Reformed commentators did better. Calvin wrote:

    Away with all the discernment of the flesh as to this matter! It is the spiritual man alone that has such a firm and solid acquaintance with the mysteries of God, as to distinguish without fail between truth and falsehood — between the doctrine of God and the contrivances of man, so as not to fall into mistake. . . . Observe, that this prerogative is not ascribed to the man as an individual, but to the word of God, which the spiritual follow in judging, and which is truly dictated to them by God with true discernment. (Commentaries, online at http://www.ccel.org)

    Calvin is reminding us that the context of 1 Cor 2:15 is the reception and recognition of the word of God, and he makes the good point that this is why the spiritual man has such good judgment.

    Likewise, Charles Hodge rightly related this verse to the right of private judgment:

    To judge here means to discern, to appreciate, and thus pass judgment upon. . . . It is not of the officers of the church only, nor of the church collectively, but of each and every man in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, that the apostle affirms this ability to discern the truth, excellence and beauty of divine things. It is as impossible that one man should discern for another what is true and good, as that one man should see for another. We must see for ourselves or not at all. The right of private judgment in matters of religion, is inseparable from the indwelling of the Spirit. (First Corinthians, online at http://www.ccel.org) ↑

35. The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT) (Eerdmans, 1996), 757. Contrary to Dr. Moo, it would not seem that commentators notice the epistemological implications of Romans 12:2. Barnes, Barrett, Schreiner, and Stott seem completely uninterested in their comments on the passage.

    John Murray seems to want to avoid the delegated authority of private judgment communicated in this passage when he writes:

    To ‘prove’ in this instance is not to test so as to find out whether the will of God is good or bad; it is not to examine. It is to approve. But it is this meaning with a distinct shade of thought, namely, to discover [how about decide], to find out [how about determine] or learn by experience what the will of God is and therefore to learn how approved the will of God is. (The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. [Eerdmans, 1959, 1965; reprint 1997], 115)

    There seems to be a disregard for the subjective authority to approve the claims of another authority reflected in dokimazō.

    Calvin appeared to have the same distaste for recognizing the subjective but critical place of the mind in what the Apostle is saying:

    Here you have the purpose for which we must put on a new mind, — that bidding adieu to our own counsels and desires, and those of all men, we may be attentive to the only will of God, the knowledge of which is true wisdom. . . . Paul exclaims, that what is good and right must be ascertained from God’s commandments. (Calvin’s Bible Commentaries [online at http://www.ccel.org])

    On the contrary, for the Christian with a renewed mind the Apostle does indeed see a place for “our own counsels” and ascertaining “what is good and right . . . from God’s commandments” and is not as direct and objective as Calvin implies. ↑

36. William Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Zondervan, 2006), 719. ↑

37. W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Thomas Nelson, 1996), 35. ↑

38. For further discussion of the biblical view of the human conscience see chapter 3.2. ↑

39. Arthur W. Pink, Practical Christianity (Baker, 1974), 175. ↑

40. For further discussion on the important distinction between disputable and doctrinal matters see section 3.2.C. ↑

41. See endnote above. ↑

42. For further discussion of the conscience see chapter 3.2. ↑

43. For further discussion of the use of reason in the decision to marry see section 4.4.A and 7.15.D.1. ↑

44. NT scholar Gordon Fee seems wrong when he comments on 2 Tim 2:15:

    Paul is not urging that he correctly interpret Scripture but that he truly preach and teach the gospel, the word of truth, in contrast to the “word battles” (v. 14) and “godless chatter” (v. 16) of the others. (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (NIBC) [Hendrickson, 1988], 255)

    Of course the Apostle includes the Gospel in “the word of truth,” but he certainly did not completely exclude the OT Scriptures Timothy knew (cf. 2 Tim 3:15), and “the [NT] things [Timothy had] heard [Paul] say in the presence of many witnesses [that he was to] entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Tim 2:2). Accordingly, even the “godless chatter” that Dr. Fee alludes to includes not just the Gospel, but, for example, the proper timing of our resurrection (cf. v. 18). ↑

45. No commentaries we are aware of properly apply the Apostle’s command in 2 Timothy 2:15 to the issue of private judgment, or even the important place that good reasoning plays in interpreting, communicating, and applying God’s word in a God-pleasing way. ↑

46. Quoted from section 2.5.E. ↑

47. John MacArthur, The Truth War (Nelson, 2007), 203. ↑

48. For further discussion of this concept see Cyril Eastwood, The Priesthood of All Believers (Augsburg, 1962). ↑

49. Quoted by P. E. Hughes, “Priesthood” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT) ed. Walter Elwell (Baker, 1984), 876. ↑

50. It can be noted here that 2 Peter 1:20 does not provide biblical evidence against the right of private judgment as it does not mean that Scripture cannot be interpreted by the individual. The context makes it clear that it is speaking of the “origin” of prophecy (cf. v. 21)- not its interpretation. ↑

51. Tertullian, To Scapula, 2, available online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

52. Which brings into question Michael Horton’s statement that, “The last thing on the mind of the Reformers was what we now call “the right to private interpretation” of the Bible.” (“Recovering the Plumb Line” in The Coming Evangelical Crisis, John H. Armstrong, ed. [Moody, 1996], 247). Dr. Horton goes on to rightly defend the value of historical theology, creeds, and confessions, but in the process unnecessarily demeans the God-given place of private judgment. For example, he laments that:

    David Wells reports [from] research on a sampling of seven evangelical seminaries. . . . “Longstanding church doctrines are the surest guide for knowing ultimate religious truth” is a statement with which only 3.7 percent could strongly agree, while 55.1 percent disagreed and strongly disagreed. (258)

    While Dr. Horton interprets this as a travesty, we would suggest it only reflects the way God has made us and that most Christians would rightly choose their own interpretation of Scripture as “the surest guide” over “longstanding church doctrines.”

    Jack B. Rogers and Donald McKim more accurately describe Luther’s view on reason:

    Reason did have a legitimate place in the life of the believer when it came after faith and was regenerated by the Holy Spirit [i.e. Spirit-liberated reason]. Luther knew that although the Gospel is a higher gift and wisdom than human reason, it does not alter or tear up man’s understanding: “for it was God Himself who implanted reason in man.” But, to be useful, reason had to be transformed. Thus, for Luther, reason’s “presumptuousness” could be tamed by the Holy Spirit and then reason could become a servant of faith. It is in this light that his famous statement at Worms (1521) must be understood: “Unless I am convicted by Scripture or plain reason . . . ”

    Luther was not setting up reason as an independent source of knowledge apart from Scripture. He was affirming rather that he must be persuaded either by scriptural citations themselves, or from the inferences a regenerated reason could draw from Scripture.

    Luther’s views regarding reason were therefore based on three careful distinctions: (1) Natural reason had as its proper realm philosophical inquiries about this world; (2) arrogant reason was reason that misguidedly attempted to invade the realm of faith; and (3) regenerate reason served to heighten Christian understanding that proceeded from faith.

    For Luther, the epistemological issue of “How do I know God?” was subordinated to the soteriological issue of “What must I do to be saved?” Human reason became identified, for him, with human autonomy and with the desire to elevate the religious and moral abilities of the human will for salvation. Luther thus attacked reason in true nominalist style, not only to refute Thomism [i.e. natural theology], but also to destroy nominalism’s optimism about the power of the human will. (The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach [Harper & Row, 1979], 81-2).

    The important distinction between Spirit-liberated and devil-darkened reason reflected here is discussed further in chapters 4.12-16. ↑

53. Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Abingdon, 1978), 144. ↑

54. For further discussion regarding the nature of truth see sections 2.3.A; and chapters 2.9-11. ↑

55. For further discussion of Luther’s views of the canon of Scripture see section forthcoming Book 16. ↑

56. Quoted by William J. Abraham, Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology : From the Fathers to Feminism (Clarendon Press, 1998), 138. ↑

57. Quoted by Frederick Farrar, History of Interpretation, Reprint, (Baker), 331. ↑

58. Martin Luther, “Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper,” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings Timothy F. Lull ed. (Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 62-3. ↑

59. Ignatius Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, quoted by Henry Bettenson, ed. Documents of the Christian Church (Oxford Press, 1963), 364. ↑

60. Quoted by Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Thomas Nelson, 1998), 87. ↑

61. Thomas Aquinas quoted in Donald G. Bloesch, The Ground of Certainty (Eerdmans, 1971), 35. ↑

62. Richard Hooker, Laws in The Works of Richard Hooker (J. Vincent, 1843), II:vii. ↑

63. For examples of theologians who, in our opinion, are not honest enough about the God-ordained place of private judgment see section 3.3.B. ↑

64. Cedric B. Cowing, The Great Awakening and the American Revolution (Rand McNally, 1971), 6. ↑

65. Gilbert Tennant, “Remarks Upon a Protestation Presented to the Synod of Philadelphia, June 1, 1741” in The Great Awakening: Documents Illustrating the Crisis and it Consequences, Alan Heimert and Perry Miller eds., (Bobbs-Merrill, 1967), 174. ↑

66. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Edward N. Gross ed., abridged version, (Presbyterians & Reformed Publishing, 1992), 93. ↑

67. Herman Bavinck, Prolegomena, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 1 (Baker, 2003), 88, 481. We hesitate to use Dr. Bavinck because he often appears to be inconsistent and contradictory on this issue. However, some of his statements seem to communicate clearly the point we are making. ↑

68. Quoted by William R. Fey, Faith and Doubt: The Unfolding of Newman’s Thought on Certainty, (Patmos Press, 1976), 113. ↑

69. John Henry Newman, “The Times of Antichrist”

    (online at http://anglicanhistory.org/tracts/tract83.html ↑

70. Pink, 169-170, 177. ↑

71. Ibid., 171. ↑

72. A. W. Tozer comp. by Warren Wiersbe, The Best of A. W. Tozer, (Baker, 1978), 84. ↑

73. James Sire, Habits of the Mind (InterVarsity, 2000), 44. ↑

74. Thomas C. Oden, The Living God : Systematic Theology: Volume One (Harper, 1994), 402 ↑

75. Norm Geisler, Introduction to Christian Philosophy (Baker, 1980), 38, 269-70. ↑

76. McKim, 113. ↑

77. For further discussion of the Roman Catholic Apocrypha (extra biblical books in the OT) see Book 16. ↑

78. For further discussion of Roman Catholic tradition and authority see chapters 13.5-8. ↑

79. For an introduction to alternative sources of divine revelation see chapter 7.8. ↑

80. For further discussion on mega mysticism see Book 14. ↑

81. Francis Peiper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 1 (Concordia, 1950), 367. ↑

82. 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article I; online at http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html. ↑

83. Another good example of a very good theologian ignoring the fact that there is a human being between us and Scripture is Robert Reymond of Knox Seminary. Dr. Reymond claims that in order to know anything truly, we must know everything completely. Therefore, since humans do not have such omniscience, “the only way to escape the force of this fact is to avoid the entire question of epistemology” (112).

    In our opinion, this is borderline skepticism. It implies that God intended to deceive us by putting us in a world that requires omniscience about everything in order not to be deceived about anything. This skepticism is reflected when Dr. Reymond claims:

    [B]ecause the mind’s innate ideas and categories of thought impose a structure on the sensory data brought to it, one can never know the objective facts of the world as they really are but only as the mind itself has “created” them. (114)

    Dr. Reymond’s solution is as follows:

    All this the Christian eschews in favor of the epistemology graciously given in the fact and propositional content of Holy Scripture. . . . In short, [the Christian] makes the Word of the self-attesting Christ of Scripture the epistemic basis for all reasoning and knowledge—even when reasoning about reason or about God’s revelation” (115-116).

    Several responses are in order. First, Dr. Reymond is not honest enough about how we process the “propositional content of Holy Scripture.” In fact, he later admits that he, “affirms the legitimate necessity of . . . the reasoning process in the activity of learning” but he does not recognize this includes his understanding that “the legitimacy of [reasoning is] authenticated by the Scriptures themselves” (116). Therefore, despite Dr. Reymond’s claim otherwise, even he must start with reasoning, and not Scripture. In fact, we do precisely what Dr. Reymond suggests—we use Scripture “even when reasoning about reason” but we are more honest about the fact that we reasoned to giving Scripture that authority, and so did Dr. Reymond.

    Dr. Reymond makes the same mistake as all epistemologically dishonest theologians when he claims that “the Word of the self-attested Christ of Scripture” is his “epistemic basis.” We contend that God did not intend for anything to be “self-attested,” not even Christ, and that Dr. Reymond himself has reasons for believing in Christ and His word, and if he did not have those reasons he would not believe in them.

    Dr. Reymond ignores how God created things. While he can accept that God gave us Scripture to give us knowledge, he will not admit that God also gave us reason in order to evaluate and process the data of Scripture. Where else did our reason come from?

    Finally, if the contents of Scripture are the only source of reliable data, then how can we know anything about construction, computers, or corneas? God wants us to process more data than what we find in Scripture and it is through our God-given reason that we do so. ↑

84. MacArthur, Wars, xx-xxi. ↑

85. John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, A. S. Pringle-Pattison ed. (Clarendon Press, 1967, online at http://www.ilt.columbia.edu.), Book IV, chap. 19, no. 10. ↑

86. For further discussion of the relationship between devil-darkened reason and Spirit-liberated reason, see chapters 4.12-16. ↑

87. Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vols. 1 & 2 (Harper & Row, 1978), 2:273. ↑

88. For further discussion regarding a supposed “illumination of the Spirit” for the interpretation of Scripture see chapter 3.5. ↑

89. For further discussion of what we mean by Spirit-liberated reason see chapter 4.15-16. ↑

90. For a more detailed critique of the “testimony” and “illumination” of the Spirit see chapters 3.4-5. ↑

91. For further discussion of the place of private judgment and its relation to the interpretation and determination of Scripture see section 2.5.E and chapter 3.3. For critiques of the Protestant doctrines of the “testimony” and “illumination” of the Holy Spirit see chapters 3.4-5. For a full discussion of the process by which the canon of Scripture is to be recognized see Volume 3. ↑

92. For an important defense of private judgment against charges of subjectivism and the nature of what we call our ultimate subjective authority, see section 3.3.B. ↑

93. Quoted in The Bible, the Church and the Reason, C. A. Briggs (T. & T. Clark, 1892), 70. Smith is actually describing the difference between the proper use of reason and rationalism, a distinction we discuss further in chapter 2.8. ↑

94. For further discussion of the difference between Spirit-liberated reason and pagan rationalism see chapter 2.8. ↑

95. Wars, 11. ↑

96. For further discussion of the superior epistemological environment and “bias” that regenerated Christians possess see chapter 2.2. Regarding the fact that our Spirit-liberated reason provides us with a correct bias, see section 4.15.A.3. ↑

97. Erwin Lutzer, Who Are You To Judge? (Moody, 2002), 10-11. ↑

98. While the Apostle’s use of katakekritai in v. 23 certainly conveys condemnation, even the softer krinōn in v. 22 does as well. There is more than mere evaluation going on here. Accordingly, Dr. Vine noted concerning the verb krinō that it usually means, “to distinguish, choose, give an opinion upon, judge,” it “sometimes denotes ‘to condemn,’ e.g., Acts 13:27; Rom. 2:27; Jas. 5:9.” (119), all of which contain an idea that goes beyond mere discerning. Accordingly, see lexicons on the related noun krima.

    This is an important point, as we would then claim that krinō in v. 22 is relatively synonymous with katakekritai in verse 23, both meaning more than simply to “judge” oneself, but to bring condemnation on oneself, or to “sin” which the Apostle applies to the meaning of the latter. ↑

99. We chose the NRSV (cf. NASB, KJV, NKJV, NET) translation because it stresses the fact that an individual’s “convictions” is “before God,” literally “in His sight [enōpion],” and therefore accountable to Him, not just “between” us and God and therefore merely known by Him as suggested in other translations (RSV, ESV, NLT, NCV, NIV). Both Moo and Schreiner translates “before,” but do not comment further, nor do they or others recognize the significance of this.

    In our opinion, the thought here is not only (if at all) that we are to keep our convictions secret from other people, as claimed by most commentators. Rather, the Apostle’s concern here is vertical (“in the sight of God”), not merely horizontal. ↑

100. In our opinion, most commentators misinterpret v. 22 such that the Apostle is speaking of some self-condemnation of conscience that has nothing to do with God. It would seem that generally they 1) do not recognize the nuance of condemnation in the use of krinō as noted in the endnote above, 2) do not apply the context of our convictions being enōpion “in the sight of God” as also noted in the endnote above, 3) do not consider the context of divine judgment stated in 14:10-12, 4) do not consider strongly enough that the condemnation of the “weaker” brother in v. 23 is certainly divine in nature, because it involves “sin,” and there would then be reason to believe the condemnation in v. 22 of the “strong” is of the same nature (cf. Barrett, 245, Moo, Murray, 196), 5) fail to recognize the divine condemnation occurring in v. 23 (cf. Stott, 368, Barnes and MacArthur, in loc.), or 6) fail to recognize that self-condemnation of the conscience essentially does involve divine condemnation, especially in Romans 14. Therefore, it is not necessary to choose between the two (cf. Moo, 862-3).

     The Apostle may be alluding to the self-condemnation of conscience in Romans 14:22-23, but he certainly does not then exclude the main idea here that God is judging us for our convictions. ↑

101. For further discussion regarding the metaphor of spiritual adulthood as it pertains to the divine revelation given in the Old Covenant as opposed to the new see section 2.1.3.E. ↑

102. In An Introduction to Reformed Dogmatics, the French theologian Auguste Lucerf (1872-1943) provides perhaps the best summary of the Protestant position, priority, and perspective on private judgment. Especially in light of the difficulty of finding a good discussion on the topic, Lucerf is worth the following rather lengthy excerpt. Although it emphasizes the debate with Roman Catholicism, the principles shared here apply to many other “authorities” as well:

     The fact is that whether we are Catholics or Protestants or Modernists, we are all confronted by a problem far more complicated than our Roman brethren would appear to think. The problem which calls for a solution is how to safeguard order in the Church under the authority of God, and at the same time the liberty of the individual Christian conscience, of which God alone is Master.

     Catholicism . . . thinks only of the rights of the religious society. It desires, above all things, to maintain order in the Church. It has a very clear conscience concerning one side of the truth, and for this it deserves commendation. It does not intend that an arbitrary individual shall impose his tyranny on the faithful or that they shall be left to the mercy of his caprice.

     Meanwhile, it altogether loses sight of the other element of the truth: the right of the individual conscience. Thus, it falls into the opposite extreme to that which attracts neo-Protestantism. The latter, in principle, though not always in practice, has scarcely any thought except for the rights of the individual, and, in its efforts to safeguard them, it loses sight of the essential conditions of religious social life [i.e. falling into independence, and forsaking community].

     When Catholicism makes the spiritual relations of the believer with Christ to depend on his submission to the prelates of the representative Church, in order to maintain the element of truth it desires to preserve, it applies a method fatal alike to the life of the Church and to the peace of the individual conscience.

     Further, the Catholic system which has been conceived in order to maintain absolute doctrinal unity, cannot even realize that, except in an administrative and external manner, and by dint of a ruinous tolerance in favor of the ecclesia discens [Church’s skill in acquiring knowledge].

     This system of guaranteeing the faith has ended by itself taking precedence over the faith which it is a question of guaranteeing. There are scarcely any Catholics, apart from professional theologians, who are really interested in doctrine. For the great majority of the faithful, and for many of the clergy also, dogmas are hardly more than abstract formulas to be accepted with the eyes shut, without troubling about their spiritual import. There is little danger, today, that ordinary Catholics will divide on such questions as the Trinity, the . . . procession of the divine Persons, the hypostatic union and transubstantiation.

     But let them study questions truly vital for them, like the rights and limits of pontifical authority in political matters, and also, for the most cultured among them, matters of science and Biblical criticism, and you will hear on all sides of mental reservations . . . even upon revolts to the point of schism. . . . This is how the system affects private individuals.

     The intransigence, the apparent immutability and external unity which Rome presents, may indeed impress many souls who are weary, with good reason, of the instability, the laxity, and the divisions of a certain type of Protestantism. But many of those who have been thus attracted, and who have then had a closer view of the system, seeing it no longer as a mirage created by imagination or ignorance, have been sadly disillusioned. The doubts which seize the minds of so many “born Catholics” cause them sometimes to give up all theological study, and sometimes to apostatize.

     In opposition to the tyranny of Rome, neo-Protestantism loudly vindicates the rights and the duties of the individual conscience. This vindication also constitutes an important, and even essential, element of evangelical truth. But, in the intoxication at the recovery of individual liberty, too often the rights and duties of the Church have been disregarded or denied. Some have gone so far as to demand that the Church should acknowledge the principle that each individual . . . should hold what opinion he pleased and say all that it pleased him to think.

     But, too often, it refuses to the Church the right of controlling the teaching of her ministers, whose individual convictions it seeks to safeguard. Regarding the idea of a confession of faith, a rule of instruction, and an authoritative synod as “tyrannical”, it imagines that the formation of sects may be avoided by total and uncontrolled liberty. It fails to realize, however, that to do this is tantamount to giving over the Church to complete doctrinal anarchy and abandoning the faithful to the tyranny of the pastoral will, more arbitrary and intolerable that that of the pope.

     “There must be also heresies among you,” says the Apostle (I Corinthians 11:19). They are bitter fruits of sin; too often, sin of the individual, obstinately attached to his own private opinion; sin also of ecclesiastical courts and tribunals, at least as often jealous of their own prerogatives.

     The power of the keys in the Reformed Church implies pedagogic [educational] tact and Christian love rather than juridical virtuosity [judgmental skill].

     Again, there is the misery of the Christian man. He realizes that the representative Church often represents quite another spirit than the true spirit of the Church and that she is fallible. Therefore, he has both a right and a duty to examine, by the aid of the light vouchsafed to him, whether what she teaches is in accordance with the Word of God, or not. It will not suffice to tell him that the Word is respected; he must see whether the affirmation corresponds with the reality. Cases may even occur in which he has to choose between the alternatives:-Christ or the representative Church.

     But, if the believer knows that even he himself is infallible as to the substance of the Gospel, in so far as he is absolutely subject to the Word of God, he must know also that he is fallible in his theology. In so far as his Church remains firmly established on the foundation which has been divinely laid, he will be aware that there is greater possibility of error in regard to secondary points on his part than on the part of men to whose faith he knows that he must render homage and who fulfill the office of their vocation in declaring that which has been given them to understand of the Word of God. As long as he is not compelled to say or to do something which his conscience, based upon the Word of God, would forbid, he ought to remain in the Church and obey her discipline.

     Practice of the communion of saints by the individual implies, on Reformed principles, humility and filial love, rather than the servile sentiment of juridical obligation. It follows that unity in [necessary things] will be less the result of the exercise of a blind discipline than the fruit of a Christian life renewed by faith, in the Church and in the individual. For Calvinism, the solution of the problem of reconciling the rights of the Church with the duties of the individual lies in the humility shown by both. As firm convictions are not invariably associated with a sufficient degree of humility and brotherly love, the empirical Church appears, even when she is faithful to Reformed principles, under the aspect of pluriformity. This is a result of sin and also of the limited character of our religious knowledge, especially when we have to pass from theory to practice.

     Thus, there will be separations; but, however regrettable and humiliating these may be, they will not have the gravity nor the final character of the schisms caused by the application of the Catholic principle. In empirical reality, the methods and the applications differ, but, the goal aimed at remaining the same, the spiritual unity of the Church is not irrevocably compromised.

     But the Reformers go further than this. They consider that a Church, even if she is faithful and, in this sense, fundamentally indefectible, may be mistaken in theological matters distinct from the basic principles and articles of faith common to the Church universal. But, as the individual knows that he is himself liable to this regrettable eventuality, he will esteem the order and unity of the Church of sufficient importance not to embitter the dispute, even if he thinks himself to be right in these secondary matters. In this way, he will show that he remains faithful to the spirit of the Reformers; that he is to be distinguished from the sectaries.

     Bossuet asked how an appeal could be made from an ecclesiastical tribunal of the lowest rank to one of a higher order, and finally to the national synod, when, in regard to all these degrees, the matter had, all the time, been judged by the Word of God. It is astonishing that so able a theologian was not able to see that, all other things being equal, one may normally expect to find more light and less personal bias at a general synod than at a local council like a consistory or a colloquy. . . .

     The Calvinistic synthesis of the authority of the Church in matters of controversy and of individual liberty of conscience in these same matters supposes a mutual toleration in secondary articles of religion and even in the disciplinary formula of the fundamental articles. That is to say, this synthesis has for its theoretical basis the famous distinction, proposed by Calvin, between the articles of faith which constitute the sum of Christianity and those which have not sufficient importance to justify a rupture of external communion.

     This distinction, which common sense itself demands, is made already in Scripture, where the Apostle compares theological systems to constructions of gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay and straw, erected on the foundation apart from which nothing can be built, namely, Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 3: 10-15). We may consider the Apostles’ Creed, that of Nicaea-Constantinople and the Athanasian Symbol as the faithful expression of this Gospel. Every particular Church which preaches the Gospel forms part of Christianity and builds on the foundation which cannot be removed.

     This is the condemnation of the narrow and legalistic Biblicism which characterized many of the Anglo-Saxon sects of the 18th and 19th centuries. The severe judgment that we have passed on sects must not be interpreted as implying their exclusion from the universal Church, nor even from historic Protestantism. That which is carnal, and even demoniac, in them, must not make us forget that, in other respects, however irregular their methods, they work for the conquest of souls by Jesus Christ. The majority of them firmly maintain the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, rejecting their formulation and ecclesiastical terminology only that they may cling to them with greater tenacity; moreover, as a rule, they are strongly attached to the essential doctrines of the Reformation. Even when they anathematize the Church, the latter must not cease to place the ideal unity of the mystical body of Christ above the narrowness and inconsistencies of certain of its living members.

     From what has been said it will be seen that we were right in maintaining that the Protestant sects and the ecclesiastical divisions of Reformed Christianity do not necessarily proceed from a faithful and intelligent application of the formal principle of the authority of Scripture. More often than not, they spring from lack of a sense of proportion, which leads men to raise to the rank of . . . a dogma necessary to the very existence of the Church, some exegetical interpretation having no vital quality at all.

     In this way Protestant separatism links up with Catholic separatism. Both are united in denying, here in practice, there in theory, the legitimacy of the distinction laid down by Calvin, between the fundamental and secondary articles of the faith.

     But the imperfect application of the formal principle of the authority of Scripture does not prevent this principle, in the expression given to it by Calvinism, from presenting an undeniable superiority to the Catholic and neo-Protestant principles. Catholicism and neo-Protestantism stand opposed one to another in a sterile and irreducible opposition. The one has no place except for the authority of the representative Church; the other takes into account only the liberty of the individual conscience. This superiority arises, therefore, from the fact that Calvinism integrates the elements of truth contained in the two others. As it is the most general expression and synthesis of these truths, it places us on a higher spiritual plane.

     The principle of radical subjectivism cannot be a principle of theology, for it would leave us only a choice between two impossibilities: either to maintain, with the moderates, that there is such a thing as a religious verity, while declaring that one cannot be certain of having ever encountered it; or to deny that there can be any question of truth in spiritual matters, and to attempt, as it were, to cultivate the spiritual life in vacuo.

     At the opposite pole to radical subjectivism stands Catholicism, which would set up a not less absolute objectivism in the shape of the infallible Church or the Pope speaking ex cathedra, whose authority guarantees to us that God has spoken in the Scriptures, that the list of writings which compose it is correct, and that the sense attached to the divine Word is the true interpretation. Every precaution is taken against the vagaries of a private judgment let loose by subjectivism.

     The difficulty is that this objectivism is a pium desiderium [pious desire] rather than an accomplished fact. We must still take into account the subject who believes in the Church’s teaching, because God has revealed it to this concrete entity which calls itself the Catholic Church. “An authority”, says Claude, “can decide nothing until it is accepted”. Now, it is the subject who accepts, and he can only do so by virtue of a decision of his own private judgment-unless, with the Reformers, we are prepared to deny that the subject who gives his assent on the faith of the divine authority is acting on his own private judgment. (Auguste Lucerf, An Introduction to Reformed Dogmatics [London, Lutterworth, 1949], 348-357, 360-2, 366). ↑

103. For further discussion of Gideon’s “fleece” and the relationship between biblical faith and objective evidence see chapters 6.12-14, esp. section 6.13.E. ↑

104. For further discussion on the need for authentication of divine revelation see chapters 6.12-14 and an introduction in section 7.1.B.5. We would suggest the only exception to this kind of objective authentication may be the supernatural gift of “distinguishing between spirits” (1 Cor 12:10) which apparently gave a person the ability to subjectively and supernaturally discern the moral source of a deed or communication. ↑

105. For further discussion of the important God-ordained authority of human testimony see section 2.5.D. ↑

106. For further discussion of the authenticating miracle of supernatural regeneration and its miraculous affects, see Book 5: Biblical Apologetics. ↑

107. The miraculous authentication that accompanied the Gospel when it was first introduced to the world should be distinguished from its need to be authenticated today. Advocates of “Power Evangelism” ignore this difference and insist that evangelists need the same powers today. For further discussion see chapter 11.6. ↑

108. For further discussion of the divine authority and authentication of those with the biblical gift of prophecy see Book 9. ↑

109. Contrary to popular Charismatic theology, no one since the Apostles have been able to match their supernatural deeds, and we are therefore warranted in believing that no one can match the authority of their words. One recognizes here some of the dangers when some insist that “healers” today can claim the ability to do God-like deeds, and modern day “prophets” have words from God. There would seem to be a lack of respect here for the absolutely unique and critically important process by which God has produced and authenticated the Scriptures. Charismatic theology, without scriptural warrant, dangerously blurs God-ordained lines that were intended. For further discussion regarding Charismatic teaching on divine revelation and miracles see much of Books 7-12. ↑

110. For further discussion of the biblical purpose of miracle working see section 11.1.F. and referenced material there. ↑