Table of Contents

Appendix A Detailed Contents

Chapter 3.3

The Guide Inside

Private Judgment & the Interpretation of Scripture

Table of Topics

A) Explaining Private Judgment & the Interpretation of Scripture

A.1) Our Reason’s Interpretation of Scripture is Our Authority

A.2) We are Accountable for Our Interpretation of Scripture

A.3) The Clarity of Scripture

A.4) Reason’s Ability to Apply Scripture

A.5) The Spirit’s Affect on Interpreting Scripture: Virtue, not “illumination”

A.6) Reason & Translations

B) Defending Private Judgment & the Interpretation of Scripture

B.1) The Humble Use of Private Judgment

B.2) The Freedom of Private Judgment is God’s Way

B.3) Private Judgment Does Not Exclude the Spirit

B.4) The Unnecessary Doubting of Postmoderns

B.5) Private Judgement vs. “A Rule of Faith”

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

While accurate interpretation of Scripture depends on logical reasoning more than anything else, this concept does not seem spiritual enough many.
It is not enough to claim that Scripture is our final authority, because actually it is our interpretation of Scripture that becomes our authority.
It does not matter whether we think our reasons for our interpretations of Scripture are adequate, but whether God does!
The clarity of Scripture means that it possesses sufficient clarity, and reason possesses sufficient ability, so that most of Scripture is readily understood.
This doctrine of the clarity of Scripture is the perfect balance to its counterpart, the God-ordained authority of private judgment. It is because God designs His revelation to be sufficiently clear, and human reason to be sufficiently able, that humans are responsible to understand and obey it.
Like any good father, God has ensured that the real difficulty regarding His revelation will not be understanding it clearly, but rather, believing and obeying it completely.
The Scriptures are already the revelation of the Spirit and we do not need another revelation of the Spirit to properly understand and apply this revelation. Scripture is not in some secret code for which we need “illumination” in order to decipher it.
The Spirit has already “fixed” our mind such that it is capable of producing customized, creative applications of God’s word for us.
Our minds are well aware of our current needs and circum-stances, and it is not unspiritual to point out that our Spirit-liberated reason is able to make connections between them.
God intended our private judgment to be exercised with virtues such as love, humility, and the fear of God.
It is not the Spirit Who interprets Scripture for us, but Who can help us with the love and self-control necessary for us to reason properly over Scripture.
The right of private judgment does not equal independence, but actually demands interdependence if it is to be used correctly.
The limitation of the Christian’s freedom to avoid error is not God’s way.
Postmoderns and those espousing a “rule of faith” disparage the clarity of Scripture and the God-given authority and ability of Spirit-liberated reason.

A) Explaining Private Judgment & the Interpretation of Scripture

In chapter 3.1 we wrote a great deal on issues related to the critical topic of human private judgment. This included a lengthy description and defense of the doctrine which should be read before continuing in this chapter. ^[1] There we concluded that our human private judgment is the bedrock of how we authenticate, accept, and decide what or who we will trust and value enough to exercise authority over our beliefs, attitudes, desires, and actions. As we have also noted, in our view, 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. The first and third proposed foundations of authority require reasoning to authenticate and accept and are therefore not the most foundational. The second option doesn’t exist. ^[2]

Here, we wish to discuss how the immense authority of human private judgment applies to even the very important responsibility of interpreting Scripture. Again, while traditionally Roman Catholics have made such things the province of the pope, and Reformed theologians have claimed some immediate supernatural “illumination” of the Spirit, on the contrary, these things are ultimately determined by a person’s own logical reasoning, a concept that does not seem spiritual enough for most, but is the most honest reality. Nonetheless, Baptist theologian Millard Erikson has written:

[A] question arises concerning the relationship between biblical authority and reason. Is not some conflict possible here? Ostensibly the authority is the Bible, but various means of interpretation are brought to bear on the Bible to elicit its meaning. If reason is the means of interpretation, is not reason, rather than the Bible, the real authority, since it in effect comes to the Bible from a position of superiority?

Here a distinction must be drawn between legislative authority and judicial authority. In the U.S. federal government, the houses of Congress produce legislation, but the judiciary (ultimately the Supreme Court) decides what the legislation means. They are separate branches of government, each with its own appropriate authority.

This seems to be a good way to think of the relationship between Scripture and reason. Scripture is our supreme legislative authority. It gives us the content of our belief and of our code of behavior and practice. Reason does not tell us the content of our belief, it does not discover [divine revelatory] truth. .

When we come to determine the message’s meaning, however, and at a later stage, assess its truth, we must utilize the power of reasoning. We must employ the best methods of interpretation or hermeneutics. . . . While there is a dimension of the self-explanatory within Scripture, Scripture alone will not give us the meaning of Scripture. There is therefore no inconsistency in regarding Scripture as our supreme authority in the sense that it tells us what to do and believe, and employing various hermeneutical and exegetical methods to determine its meaning. ^[3]

A.1) Our Reason’s Interpretation of Scripture is Our Authority

It would be a mistake to think that a discussion of the place of reason in making decisions is merely an academic or philosophical one. On the contrary, it is very important and practical in the Christian life, particularly as it relates to our relationship with Scripture. It is helpful here to remember our definition for private judgment established in chapter 3.1: the God-given authority delegated to human reason to ultimately decide what we will believe and do. ^[4] This includes how we will interpret the divine revelation of Scripture. 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 human private judgment that we have many different and often conflicting interpretations of the Gospel of Matthew exercising authority over Christians’ lives. ^[5]

The God-given place of our Spirit-liberated reason in interpreting and applying Scripture is often misunderstood. Accordingly, we noted in chapter 3.1:

The Presbyterian theologian Donald Bloesch 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.” 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” ^[6] should better be understood as Spirit-liberated reason. In other words, the Spirit is not in the business of constantly telling us how to interpret and apply Scripture, but rather, God has delegated such authority to a Christian’s Spirit-liberated reason ^[7] which has already been “fixed” by the Holy Spirit in spiritual regeneration enabling it to now properly interpret, apply, adore, and obey Scripture. ^[8]

While some may be looking for and praying for some new direct divine revelation to enable them to properly interpret and apply the revelation of Scripture, the Apostle simply told Timothy, “Do your best to . . . correctly handle the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). Such instruction would seem meaningless if there was, in fact, some special supernatural “illumination” available to enable Timothy for his task. The Apostle says nothing about Timothy’s need to seek additional revelation in order to understand the revelation of Scripture, but rather, implies that it is Timothy’s responsibility to use his best judgment in order to “correctly” interpret, apply, and teach the Scriptures.

For example, when we read Christ saying, “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away” (Matt 5:29), it is not some immediate, personal revelation from the Spirit that informs us that Christ is speaking hyperbolically, but rather our Spirit-liberated reason. All of the rules of sound interpretation are based on sound logic and reason.

And again, it is not enough to claim that Scripture is our final authority, because actually it is our interpretation of Scripture that becomes our authority. This is clearly demonstrated in the fact that we have a multitude of different denominations consisting of people who have personally decided for various reasons on varying interpretations, emphases, and applications of Scripture. Such decisions are made by human reason, and we will only accept and obey what we individually think is the correct understanding and response to a given portion of writing that we think is Scripture.

This is why the Apostle consistently speaks of appealing to people’s moral and logical reasoning. Accordingly, he exhorts the Corinthians: “I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say” (1 Cor 10:15). Likewise, he writes, “by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God” (2 Cor 4:2), and, “What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience” (2 Cor 5:11). The Apostle understood that beliefs are processed by reason, and he therefore appealed to that.

Because such beliefs are stored in reason he told Timothy, “Continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of” (2 Tim 3:14). Such beliefs, including our interpretations of the divine revelation of Scripture, are inescapably processed and produced by human reason, resulting in the God-ordained right and responsibility of human private judgment.

Long ago, the early Church leader Tertullian (c. 160–225), in his defense of the truth against heretics wrote of interpreting Scripture: “One’s aim is carefully to determine the sense of the words consistently with reason, which is the guiding principle in all interpretation.” ^[9] More recently, Millard Erickson has written:

With [a belief in the biblical God] as a starting point, the Christian theologian is to utilize the capacity of reasoning given by God to work out the implications of the revealed body of truth. ^[10]

God provided Scripture to be interpreted and applied by reason. Accordingly, we have elsewhere noted the importance Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) placed on private judgment in relation to Scripture. ^[11] Specifically, John Gerstner notes that, “Edwards’ Miscellanies on Scripture are his most straight forward and comprehensive statement on interpreting the Bible.” In these notes Edwards scribbled:

The “reasonableness” of any given interpretation is the key to its validity. . . . What is plain to reason together with what Scripture teaches justify doctrine. ^[12]

In addition, Dr. Gerstner writes:

My very title, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, signifies the way Edwards did theology. Confident of the proper use of the finite and fallen human intelligence he everywhere gave a reason for his faith in biblical revelation which he expounded meticulously with one of the finest minds ever to appear in human history. ^[13]

R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsey describe the importance of applying reason to the interpretation of Scripture because it comes to us in logical statements:

Though not a textbook in logic, the Bible assumes the validity of the law of noncontradiction on every page. Like any other document, it depends on the organon of logic for intelligible discourse. A perusal of biblical literature, especially the didactic epistles of the New Testament, reveals a high incidence of the word “therefore,” indicating a conclusion which follows logically from stated premises . . . The declarative sentences of the Bible are logical units with subjects and predicates, having an assumed logic embedded in them . . .

Again, as with the law of noncontradiction, the law of causality is not only assumed in science and philosophy but is everywhere assumed by Scripture. The Bible offers no theory of causality but assumes its validity at numerous points. Just as the Bible uses the rationally loaded word “therefore,” so it also uses the causally loaded word “because.” ^[14]

One of the most troublesome issues throughout the history of the Christian Church has been the various interpretations that have been given to Scripture. For example, any detailed commentary will readily demonstrate that there is hardly a single verse of God’s word for which its proper interpretation has not been disputed by Christians. While both the divine Author and the human author of a biblical text obviously intended one meaning, often times the text seems to yield different interpretations to equally regenerated, sincere, and intelligent readers.

Because the ministry of the Holy Spirit does not necessarily include providing absolute certainty of all of our interpretations of Scripture, we are left to our reason, much like a jury in a courtroom, weighing the available evidence in order to gain a reasonably certain, although not absolutely certain, verdict. None of this is to deny the clarity of Scripture that will be discussed below, but simply to recognize that because Christians must interpret Scripture for themselves, there is some variety in those interpretations.

As the popular theologian Wayne Grudem says:

It is not wrong to use human understanding, human logic, and human reason to draw conclusions from the statements of Scripture. Nevertheless, when we reason and draw what we think to be correct logical deductions from Scripture, we sometimes make mistakes. ^[15]

A.2) We are Accountable for Our Interpretation of Scripture

How do we define heresy? When we consider the fact that there are sincere, intelligent, and professing Christian scholars who deny that Christ claimed to be God in the Scriptures, several important questions come to mind. When does one have a sinful interpretation of Scripture as opposed to simply a wrong one? ^[16] At what point is Scripture clear enough that we become morally responsible, even with our human limitations, to know the correct interpretation? Are the Scriptures clear enough on some issues to label certain interpretations as sin? If so, who decides?

It becomes evident again, that several aspects of private judgment apply. God leaves us to our conscience and reason and will appropriately judge us for how we use them. For example, if He deems that the evidence in Scripture for the deity of Christ is clear enough for any sincere person to recognize, then we would suggest that those who deny it will have to answer to God the Son for that.

The principle is similar to that which God exercises in relation to Creation. Regardless of how humans may argue that the message in the created order is not clear enough to draw a conclusion that there is a God, He will nonetheless judge them for not using their reason correctly in order to draw the right and expected conclusion that there is a God. As we have written before, 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 applies to our interpretations of Scripture as well.

The early Church Father Irenaeus (c. 180) recognized this very thing even considering the relatively minor issue of the correct interpretation of the number of the beast in Revelation 13:18:

Others then received this reading without examination; some in their simplicity, and upon their own responsibility, making use of this number expressing one decad; while some, in their inexperience, have ventured to seek out a name which should contain the erroneous and spurious number.

Now, as regards those who have done this in simplicity, and without evil intent, we are at liberty to assume that pardon will be granted them by God. But as for those who, for the sake of vainglory, lay it down for certain that names containing the spurious number are to be accepted, and affirm that this name, hit upon by themselves, is that of him who is to come; such persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves and those who confided in them. ^[17]

Those are words to ponder, and they demonstrate the authority that the early Church believed God has granted our reason and private judgment. They also remind us of the warning we read in James, “Not many of you should presume to be Teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1).

Such a perspective regarding “disputable matters” (Rom 14:1) such as the interpretation of Scripture is reflected when the Apostle says: “He who regards one day as special [because of his interpretation and application of Scripture], does so to the Lord. He who eats meat [because of his interpretation and application of Scripture], eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God” (Rom 14:6). If your conscience confirms that you are putting God first, fearing and loving Him, rather than fearing man and loving yourself, then your decision in a “disputable matter” may be acceptable to God, even if, ultimately, you’re wrong, including, it would seem, in some of our interpretations of Scripture. ^[18]

Nonetheless, our interpretations of Scripture will be evaluated by God. As the Apostle said to one Bible Teacher, “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). Notice that Teachers like Timothy will present their handling, (which certainly includes interpretation), of Scripture before God and that there is the possibility of suffering disapproval and shame for how the Word was interpreted and taught.

The Reformers, of course, had this same attitude toward the interpretation of Scripture. As we noted in a previous chapter, Martin Luther (1483-1546) wrote:

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. ^[19]

Luther said this in reference to his teaching that when Christ said “This is My body” (Matt 26:26) in regard to the bread of communion, that He intended for us to take Him rather literally and believe that the bread was not just bread, but simultaneously the physical presence of Christ. ^[20] Luther’s fellow reformer Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), however, insisted that Christ merely intended for the bread to symbolize His physical presence. Nonetheless, Luther taught it with conviction, used his private judgment to arrive at it, and understood he was accountable to God for it.

More important than answering the question of which one is right, we would ask if God was equally pleased with both interpretations? Is the issue a “disputable matter,” and had each man used his reason correctly to reach his own conclusions, therefore each being perfectly acceptable to God? No mortal this side of Heaven can answer that question with absolute certainty, but these are the core issues in our responsibility to interpret and apply God’s word correctly.

The accountability of private judgment concerning the interpretation of Scripture is also reflected in the attitude of J. I. Packer regarding the correct interpretation of what “all Israel” means in Romans 11:26. After describing several opinions including his own, he writes: “But a good argument can be made for each option and it is for each of us to decide which we think fits the context best.” ^[21] Elsewhere, Dr. Packer lists the convictions that we must have concerning Scripture and among them is the belief that:

I must be ready to give account of my interpretative encounters with Scripture not just to my human and academic peers but to God himself, who will one day require this of every theologian and of me among them. This is to say that I must follow my method responsibly as one who must answer for what I do. ^[22]

As we have discussed further elsewhere, along with the God-ordained authority of our private judgment will be God-ordained accountability as well. ^[23]

Dr. Packer’s honesty reminds us that the interpretation of some portions of Scripture is obviously a “disputable matter.” Can any human say for certain what God meant for us to understand when the Apostle wrote: “Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?” (1 Cor 15:29)? It is little wonder that NT scholar Gordon Fee claims that, “at least forty different solutions have been suggested” for the meaning of this verse. ^[24] While this may be an extreme case, there are a myriad of other verses for which its correct interpretation is legitimately a disputable matter and the authority and responsibility of private judgment prevails. Accordingly, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind,” (Rom 14:5) that their interpretation is legitimate.

However, it is also important to note the accountability that is incurred when we decide not to confidently interpret Scripture. While this may be a legitimate approach to the Apostle’s statement concerning baptism for the dead, we deplore the inexcusable popularity of labeling large portions of Scripture as “too obscure,” or “too controversial” and too quickly assuming that God did not intend for us to interpret such passages accurately. There are a number of issues that contemporary Church leaders are choosing not to form convictions on and simply leave it to their flocks to decide for themselves. Again, while this may be legitimate for a few passages of Scripture, any God-appointed Teacher must be careful not to allow the fear of men, or apathy over God’s word, to keep them from having and teaching the doctrinal convictions that God is expecting.

The suggestion that each person has the God-given right and responsibility to interpret Scripture may lead some to assume that God will condone a wide variety of interpretations. Such is not the case. God has designed both divine revelation and human reason such that accurate communication occurs between them rather automatically. Accordingly, the King told an audience: “Why is My language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire” (John 8:43-44). The communication problem was not because of obscurity in the revelation or the physical and mental inability of the people to understand that revelation. God had done His part. The problem was the sinful desires of the people and their intentional suppression of the God-given means for such communication to occur.

A.3) The Clarity of Scripture

This introduces what is known as the clarity of Scripture. ^[25] Essentially, this historic belief of the Church claims that divine revelation in Scripture possesses sufficient clarity, and that human reason possesses sufficient ability, so that Scripture is readily understood by humans. ^[26] Accordingly, the Apostle Paul writes the Corinthians:

Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the [simplicity ^[27]] and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God’s grace.

¹³ For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, ¹⁴ as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus. (2 Cor 1:12-14)

The “simplicity” and clarity with which the Apostle wrote included both Corinthian epistles which contain some of the most difficult passages in all of Scripture to correctly understand. ^[28] This is similar to what the Apostle says later in the same epistle: “We do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God” (4:2).

This doctrine of the clarity of Scripture is the perfect balance to its counterpart, the God-ordained authority of private judgment. It is because God designs His revelation to be sufficiently clear, and human reason to be sufficiently able, that humans are responsible to understand and obey it.

In Scripture, God intended to provide a revelation of truth, not a mystery or puzzle. In pagan and postmodern religions obscure mysteries are what real divine revelations are made of. In authentic Christianity, divine mysteries are meant to be revealed, understood, and widely taught (cf. 15:51; Rom 11:25; 16:25; Eph 1:9; 3:3, 4, 6, 9; 5:32; 6:19; Col 1:26, 27; 2:2; 4:3; 1 Tim 3:16; Rev 1:20). ^[29]

Contrary to postmodern theology, our Father wants to teach us, not simply give us a bunch of things to debate about. He is not the author of confusion or gray areas, as those are the devil’s playground. Contrary to postmodernism which glories in doubts, paradoxes, opinions, and ignorance, God knows how to communicate clearly and effectively, desires to do so, and has done so in the objective text of Scripture.

Accordingly, the early Church Father Chrysostom (c. 347–407), said:

The Prophets and the Apostles . . . established for all the things that are sure and clear, inasmuch as they are the common Teachers of the whole world so that each person by himself or herself might be able to understand what was said from the reading alone. ^[30]

As Martin Luther once put it:

The Holy Spirit is the simplest writer and adviser in heaven and on earth. That is why his words could have no more than the one simplest meaning which we call the written one, or the literal meaning of the tongue. ^[31]

The Christian philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) wrote: “There is enough clarity in the Bible to enlighten the elect, and enough obscurity to humble them.” ^[32] Finally, Mary Queen of Scots said to John Knox: “You interpret the Scriptures in one manner, and they interpret it in another; whom shall I believe?” Knox answered: “You shall believe God, that plainly speaketh in His word . . . the word of God is plain in the self; and if there appear any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, which is never contrarious to himself, explains the same more clearly in other places, so there can be no doubt, except for those who obstinately remain ignorant.” ^[33]

It is the Father’s way and will to teach His children well, and He does this through providing a written revelation with a rather obvious and unambiguous meaning, designed to be rather readily understood by our Spirit-liberated reason which He also designed. Like any good father, God has ensured that the real difficulty regarding His revelation will not be understanding it clearly, but rather, believing and obeying it completely.

A.4) Reason’s Ability to Apply Scripture

Accordingly, we would suggest that the authority of private judgment applies equally to the application of Scripture. Again, we do not want to diminish what it means when we say that “God spoke to our need through the Scriptures.” Still, such a thing is often spoken of as some additional and separate “illumination” or revelation of the Spirit. Scripture does not teach such a thing.

For example, after the Apostle Paul relates some analogies about ministry to Timothy, he adds, “Reflect [noei: “contemplatively think over”] on what I am saying [writing], for the Lord will give you insight into all this” (2 Tim 2:7). How would “the Lord . . . give . . . insight into” what the Apostle was writing? An “illumination” by the Spirit? On the contrary, by using the God-given faculty of reason to carefully think about the meaning of the Apostle’s revelation. The reason that the Apostle attributes a resulting understanding as divine insight is not because it occurs in a mystical, miraculous way, but a mental, more regular way, in which we use the human means God has given us to understand His revelation. The Apostle does not imply or even hint that some supernatural “illumination” of the Spirit or an additional divine “inspiration” is needed to understand Scripture, but rather and simply mental reflection by Timothy.

The Scriptures are already the revelation of the Spirit and we do not need another revelation of the Spirit to properly understand and apply this revelation. Scripture is not in some secret divine code for which we need supernatural “illumination” in order to decipher it. The Spirit revealed Scripture, and now it requires the diligent use of our Spirit-liberated reason to fully understand that revelation and to apply it. While a reference to an “illumination of the Spirit” certainly sounds more spiritual, it is an unnecessary misunderstanding of something that actually occurs more naturally for the born again Christian. ^[34]

What is commonly ignored on the issue of interpreting and applying Scripture is the God-given and God-glorifying capability and creativity of our Spirit-liberated reason. Our minds are well aware of our current emotional/spiritual needs and personal circumstances, and it is not unspiritual to point out that our Spirit-liberated reason is able to make encouraging, insightful, and mind/heart transforming connections between those needs and circumstances, and what we read in Scripture or hear in a sermon. Who would really doubt that the Christian’s mind would be perfectly capable of doing this without needing additional revelation from the Spirit? We do the exact same thing constantly and correctly in all sorts of ways in every day life.

This seems to be another case in which God the Holy Spirit is being called upon to do something that He has already equipped us to do ourselves. While some would claim that the proper and personal application of Scripture requires a revelation of the Spirit, we would only point out that the Spirit has already “fixed” our mind such that it is now capable of producing customized applications of God’s word for us without additional revelation.

Not even the spiritual gift of teaching (cf. Rom 12:7) supernaturally enables a teacher to automatically interpret and apply Scripture more accurately than others. On the contrary, the gift, like all spiritual gifts, essentially grants a supernatural and extraordinary desire to properly interpret and apply Scripture. This in turn results in more diligent and careful hard work than most others are willing to do in order to “do your best to . . . correctly handle the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). In other words, because the diligent and careful use of Spirit-liberated reason is the most important thing for properly interpreting and applying Scripture, the spiritual gift of teaching grants a supernatural desire to do this very thing, resulting in more accurate, helpful, and thoughtful interpretations and applications of Scripture.

Accordingly, the popular Bible teacher John Piper writes:

The work of the Holy Spirit in the process of interpretation is not to add information, but to give to us the discipline to study and the humility to accept the truth we find without twisting it. ^[35]

Likewise, theologians Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis, Professors of Theology at Denver Seminary write:

Divine illumination produces no new revelation; illumination opens the mind and will to the reception of revelation [in our opinion, at the time of spiritual regeneration]. ^[36]

Finally, we quote the Evangelical NT scholar Grant Osborne, Professor of NT at Wheaton:

While the Spirit enables the reader to gain insight into the Word, he does not provide that information for the reader. We still must utilize our rational capacity to draw inferences from the data.

As [John] Frame [from Westminster] states, the Spirit allows us to overcome the effects of sin on the rational process. “The Spirit does not whisper to us special reasons which are not otherwise available; rather, he opens our eyes to acknowledge those reasons which are available” (Frame 1986:234).

In other words, the Spirit makes it possible for the reader to use every faculty to discern the Word and apply it. . . . The Spirit enables us to free our minds to the text but does not whisper to us the correct answer.^[37]

A.5) The Spirit’s Affect on Interpreting Scripture: Virtue, not “illumination”

How then does the Spirit help us interpret and apply Scripture? We believe the answer is found when the Apostle Paul writes: “God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline” (2 Tim 1:7 NLT).

“Fear” particularly of people can easily distort our reasoning to the proper interpretation and application of Scripture. How else can we explain the popular denial or disregard in the Church of the seriousness of sin and the reality of Hell in our proclamations of the Gospel. Has the “fear of man” enticed us to ensure that, “the offense of the cross has been abolished” (Gal 5:11), the very thing the Apostle denounced other “evangelists” for? For many, it is a “fear of man” that has led to the acceptance of lesbian pastors in obvious contradiction to what Scripture clearly says (cf. Lev 18:22; Rom 1:18, 22, 24, 26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 2:11-14; 1 Cor 14:33-25). The fear of criticism and desire to be popular will indeed distort our reasoning such that we can deny the clear meaning and demands of God’s word.

The “power” that the Spirit has given us has liberated our mind from the demonic oppression through which, “The god of this age [satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ” (2 Cor 4:4), or the value and divine truth in Scripture either. As we discuss further elsewhere, Our Spirit-liberated reason is now empowered to do what it was designed to do—receive, understand, and apply the revelation of God. ^[38]

“Love” needs to be the motivation and goal of all our Bible interpretation and application. If we are looking in Scripture for a justification of selfish or sinful desires, or a platform on which to arrogantly correct or legalistically control someone, we might find all of these in Scripture. But love of the Spirit in us will not be guiding us, and we will therefore reason to an incorrect interpretation or application of God’s word. It is the supernatural love for God and people that the Spirit provides that brings us to Scripture with the proper desires to understand God correctly and to obey Him completely.

Finally, “self-control” is especially important in properly handling Scripture for the very reason that it requires disciplined, focused, undistracted meditation (i.e. reasoning) on the text of Scripture. The Apostle Peter shares something similar regarding prayer when he writes: “[B]e clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray” (1 Pet 4:7). The Apostle is not suggesting here that we simply need the Spirit to pray, as if He does this for us. What he implies is that we are able and expected to pray, and that in order to do so we need to engage our mind properly. Accordingly, the Spirit can help us do this, by granting us self-control over our thoughts and the ability to focus. Likewise, it is not the Spirit Who interprets Scripture for us, but Who can help us with the love and self-control necessary for us to reason properly over Scripture. These holy, humble, and passionate desires from the Spirit are the most critical virtues for enabling our reason to correctly interpret and apply Scripture.

A.6) Reason & Translations

The issue of private judgment also applies to translations of Scripture. Thankfully, most modern translations have been conducted in community where the private judgment of each individual is rightly balanced with the desire to be substantially united with the learned opinions of others before prescribing a particular rendering of God’s word. However, translations of individuals include those of Jerome (c. 345–c. 419), John Wycliffe (c. 1329–1384), Erasmus (c. 1466–1536), William Tyndale (c. 1494–1536), Martin Luther (NT 1522, OT 1534), J. B. Phillips, (The New Testament in Modern English, 1958, revised 1972), or paraphrases such as the very popular Living Bible by Kenneth Taylor (published 1971), or the more recent The Message by Eugene Peterson (completed in 2002). These private translations have exercised a great deal of influence in the Church, and the authors of them have all expressed their ultimate dependence on their private judgment for the accuracy of their translations. ^[39]

In addition to this, students in seminary are often encouraged to learn the original biblical languages well enough in order to effectively use their own private judgment to evaluate modern translations for themselves. All of this illustrates the foundational authority that private judgment has in our relationship with Scripture.

Pastoral Practices

Interpreting the Bible correctly is critical to the Christian life, and the most important aspect of this task for the Christian is the proper use of hermeneutics or rules of interpretation. Study a good book on this subject such as An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics by Walter C. Kaiser and Moises Silva, (Zondervan, 1994). In addition, acquire and read good commentaries to see these rules put into practice.

B) Defending Private Judgment & the Interpretation of Scripture

B.1) The Humble Use of Private Judgment

In recognizing the God-ordained authority of private judgment we do not wish to promote dissension, arrogance, or heresy. It is not just any kind of private judgment that God has ordained or approves. Rather, private judgment was divinely designed to only work properly in an atmosphere of love, humility, and the fear of God.

Along these lines, in the context of human private judgment, the Apostle Paul writes in conclusion: “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God” (Rom 14:22). The Apostle reminds us that not all of the personal convictions of our private judgment should be shared with others. “These things” in Romans 14 included the debate over the Jewish food laws and special days. What “these things” will be for us is best determined by doing “everything in love” (1 Cor 16:14).

As we have written briefly in the previous chapter, love for others, instead of love for our opinions, must always be our guide as to whether or not our opinion on a debatable matter should be shared with others. One of the most knowledgeable Christians who ever lived wrote: “If I . . . can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge . . . but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2). While we are responsible to use our private judgment in obtaining our personal convictions, we do not automatically have the liberty or responsibility to share those convictions with others.

The Apostle also wrote, “Only [say] what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen” (Eph 4:29). As we have noted elsewhere:

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, 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. ^[40]

Immediately we see the need for humility if our private judgment is to be exercised as God intended. While the God-given authority of our private judgment is considerable, it is not infallible. Only the Lord knows how many errors in our convictions will be revealed on “that Day.” The Apostle warned: “Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies” (1 Cor 8:1), reminding us that arrogance is the worst of all potential results of pursuing a greater knowledge of even sacred things. Likewise, Solomon the Wise wrote it is, “A fool [who] finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions” (Prov 18:2). In asserting the God-ordained authority of private judgment we do not wish to advocate arrogance, but rather personal responsibility.

Along these lines, J. I. Packer adds an important word regarding the importance of humility in the exercise of our private judgment:

The Reformation is often misrepresented as having taught the right of private judgment of Scripture in terms of the Christian’s being privileged to disagree with the church, the Bible, and every external authority if his heart moves him so to do. In fact, the Reformers taught the duty of private judgment, in the sense that no adult may take his or her faith secondhand, but all must accept the discipline of verifying from Scripture whether what they have been told is so.

The Christian’s conscience . . . as Luther memorably declared at Worms in 1521, is and must be subject to the Word of God-which means the teaching of Holy Scripture, which is God’s own teaching about Himself and about us. Humility in private judgment means that one keeps searching the Scriptures until one is clear as to what God says, and that one forbids one’s own proud intellect to close issues that the God of the Bible leaves open, or to jump to conclusions on matters about which Scripture does not speak, or to decline to take help in interpreting Scripture from Christian tradition, on the supposition that a godly Bible student gets on perfectly well without such help. ^[41]

As Dr. Packer implies, humility will dictate that we seek counsel from others on any decision we are making, which can only enhance our private judgment. Accordingly, our God-given right to private judgment does not negate the God-ordained place of gifted teachers in the Church to help us understand and apply Scripture. From God’s perspective, this right does not equal independence, but actually demands interdependence if it is to be used correctly.

B.2) The Freedom of Private Judgment is God’s Way

Many in the Church today discount the God-ordained right of private judgment for the same reasons they neglect teaching, promoting, and practicing grace: they are afraid it will lead to more sin. But God’s gift and delegation of private judgment for humans, like His grace, is not for those who want to rebel more, but who want to please Him more. And like grace, private judgment empowers us to do so.

Few things are as ironic and unfortunate today as the high praise that Martin Luther receives from Protestant theologians for using his private judgment against the interpretations of God’s word in his day, contrasted with their criticism of this very thing today. We would suggest that it seems both inconsistent and dishonest to uphold this right when the results are to their liking, but then deny the God-ordained authority of private judgment when people come to different conclusions than their own. We realize, just as the Reformers did, that respecting the God-given authority of private judgment opens the way to all kinds of erroneous and conflicting opinions in the Church. However, we have more confidence in God’s design of, and intentions for, our Spirit-liberated reason, and as a result, there will be less error than is feared.

The oldest and most influential opposition to private judgment in the Church has come from Roman Catholicism. Their doctrine of the infallibility of the pope not only denies this right to all others, but hypocritically and illegitimately gives it to one person. ^[42] As discussed further elsewhere, traditional Romanism flat out denies the God-given clarity of Scripture and the God-given ability of the Christian’s Spirit-liberated reason, and therefore, the God-given right and duty of individual Christians to interpret Scripture. ^[43]

Roman Catholicism’s concern has been a real one, namely, the abuse of such individual authority. However, the limitation of the Christian’s freedom for the purpose of avoiding error has not been God’s way. Accordingly, the respected Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) is honest about both the risks and the reality of the God-ordained place of private judgment in relation to Scripture when he writes:

The teaching of the perspicuity of Scripture is one of the strongest bulwarks of the Reformation. It also most certainly brings with it its own serious perils. Protestantism has been hopelessly divided by it, and individualism has developed at the expense of the people’s sense of community. The freedom to read and to examine Scripture has been and is being grossly abused by all sorts of groups and schools of thought.

On balance, however, the disadvantages do not outweigh the advantages. For the denial of the clarity of Scripture carries with it the subjection of the layperson to the priest, of a person’s conscience to the church. The freedom of religion and the human conscience, of the church and theology, stands and falls with the perspicuity of Scripture. It alone is able to maintain the freedom of the Christian; it is the origin and guarantee of religious liberty as well as of our political freedoms.

Even a freedom that cannot be obtained and enjoyed aside from the danger of licentiousness and caprice is still always to be preferred over a tyranny that suppresses liberty. In the creation of humanity, God himself chose this way of freedom, which carried with it the danger and actually the fact of sin as well, in preference to forced subjection. Even now, in ruling the world and governing the church, God still follows this royal road of liberty. It is precisely his honor that through freedom he nevertheless reaches his goal, creating order out of disorder, light from darkness, a cosmos out of chaos.

Rome . . . believes that the Holy Spirit teaches infallibly only through the agency of the pope. The Reformation, however, believes that the Holy Spirit indwells the heart of every believer, that every child of God shares in the anointing of the Holy One. It therefore puts the Bible in the hands of everyone, translates and distributes it, and in church uses no other language than the vernacular. ^[44]

As noted elsewhere, not even the man accepted by the Roman Church to be their greatest theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), fully supported Rome’s view when he wrote: “No one should decidedly adhere to an exposition of Scripture that with sure reason is ascertained to be false . . . in order that, from this, Scripture not be derided by the infidels.” ^[45]

B.3) Private Judgment Does Not Exclude the Spirit

Some claim that promoting the place of reason in the proper interpretation and application of Scripture is not “spiritual” enough. Again, our view is that the Holy Spirit has miraculously “fixed” our reason so that it can now function to accurately and effectively interpret and apply Scripture. Along these lines, James White comments:

For many, the guidelines we have noted regarding sound hermeneutic practice seem sterile, scholarly, and anything but spiritual. However, are we really banishing the Spirit when we make a commitment to fully use our minds in honestly handling the Word?

First, I truly believe that only the Spirit of God motivates a person to make such a commitment from the start. It is God-honoring to say, “I do not wish to put words in God’s mouth; I wish to hear Him clearly, so that I may be conformed to His truth, changed by the Word’s ministry in my soul, and found obedient to His will.” The natural man has no such desire.

Second, perseverance to work through the difficult issues so as to bring God’s truth to God’s people (i.e., the work of the elder who teaches and preaches) is likewise as spiritual an activity as one can possibly imagine. It is far easier to adopt the words of someone else, tell a series of heart-touching stories, and call it “good.” Serious, intensive, long-term ministry of the Word in the context of the church takes a tremendous work of the Spirit, and when you see a man of God who has persevered in this work, do not praise him, but instead praise the One who has made him faithful. ^[46]

So there are a myriad of ways that the Spirit is actively involved in our relationship with Scripture without having to suggest that He reveals or controls its interpretation or application for us.

B.4) The Unnecessary Doubting of Postmoderns

The divine design of revelation and reason is completely ignored by postmodern philosophers who suggest that humans cannot and should not be certain of their interpretation of Scripture. For example, Dr. Stuart Hackett, Professor of the Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, rightly recognizes the need for humans to interpret Scripture for themselves, but then seems to deny their ability to confidently do so when he writes:

It is important to acknowledge and even insist that, since not even the most sympathetic and thoughtful reader of the Bible can reasonably claim unexceptionably that he is in possession of this ideally correct interpretation-and since there is no way to be incorrigibly certain that one has adequately identified, much less sufficiently considered, the total relevant context in his careful interpretation of Scripture-it follows that no interpreter can do more than claim, for his own understanding of Scripture, an approximation to that divinely authoritative and objective truth that an ideally correct interpretation would in principle provide. ^[47]

Dr. Hackett’s error is illustrated by the fact that if he was consistent in his epistemology he would also need to insist that his interpretation of the Gospel of Christ is only “an approximation” of its correct interpretation, because the authoritative source of the Gospel is Scripture. He has gone too far in emphasizing our humanness because he has ignored both the God-given clarity of Scripture and God-given ability of Spirit-liberated reason. While we would agree that a relatively few parts of Scripture are difficult to interpret, postmodern philosophers like Dr. Hackett erroneously and indiscriminately apply this obscurity to all of Scripture. And again, such an approach ignores God’s design of Scripture and Spirit-liberated reason which He intended to ensure adequate communication between them. ^[48]

B.5) Private Judgement vs. “A Rule of Faith”

One of the more recent and detailed attacks on the God-ordained place of private judgment concerning the interpretation of Scripture has come from the pen of the Reformed scholar Keith Mathison. His book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, has been endorsed by the popular theologian R. C. Sproul. This is not surprising, as Dr. Mathison is associate editor of Table Talk magazine from Dr. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries, and Academic Dean of Ligonier Academy.

Dr. Mathison claims that “The majority of evangelicalism has adopted” ^[49] the God-ordained place of private judgment. On the contrary, we would claim the majority have adopted, or at least unknowingly added, “the illumination of the Spirit” doctrine.

Throughout Dr. Mathison’s book, he contrasts what he regards as the historical doctrine of sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”) with what he calls solo Scriptura which is interpreting Scripture through the individual’s own reason. For example, he writes:

Solo scriptura results in the autonomy of the individual believer who becomes a law unto himself. Scripture is interpreted according to the conscience and reason of the individual. Everything is evaluated according to the final standard of the individual’s opinion of what is and is not scriptural. The individual, not Scripture, is the real final authority according to solo scriptura. This is rebellious autonomy, and it is a usurpation of the prerogatives of God. ^[50]

One could hardly describe the God-given authority of private judgment better. It is equally clear that Dr. Mathison views it as sin against Almighty God. However, in our opinion, it is the seriousness of his accusation, rather than the force of his arguments, that demands the following rather lengthy refutation. Dr. Mathison seems to be wrong on most points, his main thesis appears to be rather meaningless, his warnings regarding the God-ordained place of private judgment seem rather sensational and inaccurate, and he offers no respectable alternative.

First, Dr. Mathison is wrong to suggest that neither Scripture, ^[51] nor the Reformers supported the right to private judgment. ^[52] On the latter, for example, the author says:

Those who advocate [private judgment] under the banner of Martin Luther, John Calvin and the slogan sola scriptura [Scripture alone is our authority] do so either out of ignorance or dishonesty. ^[53]

On the contrary, in chapter 3.1 we provided numerous quotes from Church leaders throughout history, including Martin Luther, Richard Hooker, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Hodge. ^[54] All of them supported the central place that a person’s reason has in determining the meaning of Scripture.

Accordingly, while Dr. Mathison would accuse promoters of private judgment to be either ignorant or dishonest about the historical view of this doctrine, it would seem he is especially guilty himself of the latter when he quotes Charles Hodge at length throughout his book to support his thesis while conspicuously leaving out Hodge’s clear support of private judgment as demonstrated elsewhere. ^[55]

Secondly, Dr. Mathison’s main thesis that Scripture should be interpreted by a “rule of faith” is meaningless. First of all, he is confusing in how this concept is to be defined. At times he simply defines it as the contents of Scripture as when he writes:

[T]he regula fidei was a summary of the apostolic doctrine preserved by the Church, taught to the catechumens, and gradually inscripturated in complete form in the canonical books by the Apostles. ^[56]

In other words, the “rule of faith” by which we are to interpret Scripture is Scripture. Dr. Mathison also agreeably quotes Charles Hodge who simply defines the “rule of faith” as what is plainly taught in Scripture. ^[57] If Dr. Mathison is suggesting that we need to interpret Scripture with Scripture we strongly agree, but would add that we use our reason and private judgment to do so.

Elsewhere, he suggests this “rule of faith” that is to reign over our reason is to be found in the ancient creeds. For example, he writes:

If sola scriptura is true, the Scripture is to be interpreted by the Church within the hermeneutical context of the regula fidei or rule of faith. This rule of faith has found written expression in the ecumenical creeds [i.e. Nicene, Chalcedonian] of the Church. ^[58]

We noted above that for Dr. Mathison the “rule of faith” was “inscripturated in complete form in the canonical books by the Apostles.” Here he adds that it is has also, “found written expression in the ecumenical creeds.” We assume this is what he means when he later adds that, “it is therefore to the Church that we must turn for the true interpretation of the Scripture.” ^[59] So, it would seem that the “rule of faith” that is to replace reason as our final subjective authority can be at least three different things: Scripture, creeds, and the Church.

Ironically, and rather hypocritically, Dr. Mathison’s postmillennial view of the return of Christ does not follow any of his sources for a “rule of faith.” ^[60] No ancient creeds of the Church reflect postmillennialism, it has historically been a very minor view of the Church, and, in our opinion, it is not a very good interpretation of Scripture, and perhaps even a damaging one. Dr. Mathison has no honest choice but to admit that he himself has used his own private judgment to arrive at postmillennialism, and he has fallen into the very kind of error that he is rightfully so concerned about.

Nonetheless, Dr. Mathison claims that the “rule of faith” is the solution to what he considers to be the heresy of private judgment. For example, he describes the problem of various interpretations of Scripture and writes:

Each man will claim that he bases his judgment on the authority of the Bible, but since each man’s interpretation is mutually exclusive of the other’s, both interpretations cannot be correct. How then do we discern which interpretation is correct?

The typical modern Evangelical solution to this problem is to tell the inquirer to examine the arguments on both sides and decide which of them is closest to the teaching of Scripture. He is told that this is what sola scriptura means-to individually evaluate all doctrines according to the only authority, the Scripture. Yet in reality, all that occurs is that one Christian measures the scriptural interpretations of other Christians against the standard of his own scriptural interpretation.

Rather than placing the final authority in Scripture as it intends to do, this concept of Scripture places the final authority in the reason and judgment of each individual believer. The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today. ^[61]

We too lament some of the consequences of human imperfections, but Dr. Mathison has no other solution other than to essentially prescribe the ancient creeds or traditional interpretations of Scripture.

Obviously, the ancient creeds of the Church are vitally important guides to the interpretation of Scripture and should be taken into serious consideration. Nonetheless, there are several things that reduce their authority or helpfulness as well.

First, they are not any more infallible than human reason. There is nothing divinely inspired about creeds, and they are nothing more (or less!) than simply ancient summaries of historical, popular interpretations of Scripture. Similar, and perhaps even better summaries could be written today.

Secondly, their brevity as well hinders their usefulness in most of the doctrinal debates occurring today, not only because they don’t address many teachings of Scripture, but their silence on an issue cannot be taken as an authoritative statement concerning it.

Dr. Mathison is also concerned that private judgment undermines pastoral authority in the church. He writes:

Solo scriptura [i.e. private judgment applied to Scripture] also undermines the legitimate ecclesiastical authority established by Christ. It negates the duty to submit to those who rule over you, because it removes the possibility of an authoritative teaching office in the Church. To place any kind of real hermeneutical authority in an elder or teacher undermines the doctrine of solo scriptura.

Those adherents of solo scriptura who do have pastors and teachers to whom they look for leadership do so under the stipulation that the individual is to evaluate the leader’s teaching by Scripture first. What this means in practice is that the individual is to measure his teacher’s interpretation of Scripture against his own interpretation of Scripture. The playing field is leveled when neither the ecumenical creeds nor the Church has any more authority than the individual believer. ^[62]

Again, teachers, creeds, and the writings of the Church Fathers are all very valuable gifts of God provided to assist us in our interpretation of Scripture and must by humbly and diligently considered with a very respectful attitude. But none of them replace the God-given authority of our own Spirit-liberated reason. Does not Scripture say, “The Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures [with nothing more than reason and their private judgment] every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). God praises such activity even in the context of personally hearing an Apostle of Jesus Christ, let alone what our attitude should be toward creeds or the writings of men.

Finally, Dr. Mathison has no answer for the fact that teachers, churches, and even creeds have differed widely throughout history in their interpretations of Scripture. If they are to exercise authority over our own reason, which ones are to do so?

Like it or not, we are back to the fact that we are responsible to use our Spirit-liberated reason and that no other person or institution can or should replace its function in our lives. Human private judgment is the ultimate foundation of all other authorities that one might suggest, whether it be a pope, a creed, a pastor, the “testimony of the Spirit,” or even the Bible. This is why God will hold all humanity responsible for how they used their private judgment to correctly assess the divine authority present in all the institutions, literature, and people which claim to speak for God. ^[63]

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our Father, we are humbled and sobered by the amount of freedom you grant us in our life. We recognize that with such freedom comes a great deal of responsibility. Help us to exercise our God-given decision-making faculties in a God-honoring way. Help us not to just blindly and apathetically accept the opinions of others, but neither to be arrogant and independent. We thank you today for our mind, and pray that our proper use of it would glorify You.

Gauging Your Grasp

How have we defined private judgment?
How does Romans 14 support this doctrine?
How do the following Scriptures support this doctrine? 1 Corinthians 7:36-7; 2 Corinthians 9:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Acts 17:11; Romans 1:7.
How does private judgment apply to our interpretation of Scripture?
What are some problems with the idea that interpreting and applying Scripture correctly is dependent on a continual and immediate work of the Holy Spirit, rather than a result of using our Spirit-liberated reason that the Spirit “fixed”?
Why do we suggest that our Spirit-liberated reason is capable of customized applications of Scripture?
How would you articulate why the doctrine of private judgment is not simply an academic, philosophical issue, but an important and practical one?
What are important safeguards to the use of our private judgment?
What problem would postmodern philosophers have with our promotion of private judgment for interpreting Scripture? What was our response?
What is Dr. Keith Mathison’s concerns about the right of private judgment? What is his solution? What do you think of his views?

Recommended Reading

Knowing Our God chapter 3.1 which introduces the doctrine of the right to private judgment.
Knowing Our God chapter 3.5 for a thorough discussion of the doctrine of an “illumination” of the Spirit which is the Protestant alternative to private judgment regarding the interpretation of Scripture.
“Private Judgment” in Practical Christianity by Arthur W. Pink, (Baker, 1974). Unfortunately, one of the very few “modern” discussions of this vital topic.

Publications & Particulars

For an important description and defense of the doctrine of private judgment see section 3.1.C. For a further defense see chapter 3.5 as well, which provides further examples of the error that can be made in theology if this reality is not recognized. ↑
For an introduction to these optional sources of foundational authority see section 3.1.C. For further discussion regarding the Roman Catholic papacy see chapter 13.7. Regarding the “testimony of the Spirit” see chapter 3.4. ↑
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., (Baker, 1998), 282-3. ↑
For an important description and defense of the doctrine of private judgment see section 3.1.C. ↑
Quoted from section 2.5.E. ↑
For further discussion regarding a supposed “illumination of the Spirit” for the interpretation of Scripture see chapter 3.5. ↑
For further discussion of what we mean by Spirit-liberated reason see chapters 4.15-16. ↑
Excerpt from section 3.1.C.4.d. ↑
Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 9, online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., (Baker, 1998), 57. ↑
For the view of Jonathan Edwards regarding private judgment and the interpretation of Scripture see section 3.1.C.3. ↑
John Gerstner, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. (Berea, 1991), I.573. ↑
Ibid., I.1. ↑
R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsey, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Academie Books, 1984), 81-2, 84-5. ↑
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), 34. ↑
Reformed theologian John Frame’s suggested answer to “What is heresy?” is as follows:

Is it sinful to hold the wrong view about limited atonement, for example? Holding a wrong view about this (or any doctrine) would be sinful only if (1) the person has the Bible in his own language, presented at a level suited to his mental capacity, (2) he has had the time and resources to come to a correct conclusion, and (3) he has nevertheless willfully rejected the truth (at some level of his thinking).

We should be gentle with those who differ from us; they may not be rebellious or sinful in their disagreement, only immature (in other respects they may surpass us). And, of course, we must always recognize the possibility that we may be wrong, that a brother or sister who disagrees may have something to teach us. (The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God [Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987], 21).

Unfortunately, Dr. Frame picks a particularly sticky issue (limited atonement) for an example and seems to be assuming that there is clearly a right view of it that should be seen by all. Still, his thoughts have value. ↑
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V.30, online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑
For further discussion of “disputable matters” in relation to our conscience see section 3.2.C. ↑
Martin Luther, “Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper,” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings Timothy F. Lull ed. (Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 62-3. ↑
John Gerstner adds regarding Luther’s interpretation of the Eucharist:

We call this [interpretation] profoundly rational because of the way Luther defended his apparent irrationalism. Oecolampadius asked him what more would be accomplished by Christ’s corporeal presence in the eucharist than by His spiritual presence. Luther admitted that he did not know. But, if Christ commanded him to eat dung he would do it, knowing it was good for him. Sweet reasonableness! Luther could not have been more rational. The only question for any rational person is whether God has spoken and what He has said. Luther, wrongly we think, supposed that Christ meant that the bread He held was His body. If the Son of God did mean that, what rational man could disbelieve it? (The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. [Berea, 1991], I.36). ↑
J. I. Packer, Honoring the Written Word of God: The Collected Shorter Writings of J. I. Packer, Vol. 3 (Paternoster, 1999), 212. ↑
Ibid., 220. ↑
For the importance of divine accountability in the use of private judgment and how this distinguishes it from postmodern perspectives see section 3.1.C.4.f. ↑
Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Eerdmans, 1987), 762. ↑
Theologians commonly refer to the clarity of Scripture as perspicuity. ↑
We would suggest that our definition of the clarity of Scripture is better than the one suggested by the respected Reformed theologian John Armstrong who writes: “Basically, “perspicuity” (or clarity) means the Bible is self-interpreting as to its essential truths.” (“The Authority of Scripture” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible [Soli Deo Gloria, 1995], 136). Again, we would insist that nothing is “self-interpreting” and such a statement seems dishonest about the place that subjective human reasoning plays in even Dr. Armstrong’s interpretation of Scripture. ↑
There is some debate as to the correct original word in the text of 2 Corinthians 1:12. Some manuscripts have halotēti which means “simplicity” (e.g. ESV, KJV, NKJV). Other manuscripts have hagiotēti which means “holiness” (e.g. NASB, RSV, NIV 84). C. K. Barrett admits that “The words, especially when written in Greek uncials, look much alike [and] confusion would be easy (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Hendrickson, 1997], 68). Translations such as “frankness” (NRSV), “honest” (NLT, NCV), and “integrity” (NIV) do not reflect either.

Nevertheless, most commentators see reasons to confidently choose halotēti (“simplicity”) as the correct reading. Dr. Barrett writes: “Paul is defending himself against a charge of duplicity, and an appeal to singleness of mind is particularly appropriate” (71). Paul Barnett adds “In our view [halotēti: “simplicity”] is probably to be preferred as better suited to the context and, moreover, recurring in 2 Corinthians (8:2; 9:11, 13; 11:3; cf. 4:2), whereas [hagiotēti: “holiness”] is not used elsewhere by Paul” (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Eerdmans, 1997], 92). Albert Barnes and William Tyndale agreed (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Findex.Com, 1999). As did Charles Hodge (Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians; online at http://www.ccel.org) and John Calvin (Calvin’s Commentaries; online at http://www.ccel.org). ↑
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.

Some may see a contradiction in 2 Peter 3:16 where we read:

He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

However, the Apostle never implies that understanding him will never require careful study. This would not mean, however, that it is not understandable. Accordingly, the Apostle wrote Timothy: “Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this” (2 Tim 2:7). ↑
For further discussion of the different perspectives on spiritual mysteries between authentic Christianity and pagan religion see section 12.7.B. ↑
Herman Bavink, Prolegomena, Church Dogmatics (Baker, 2003), 56. ↑
Martin Luther, Concerning the Letter and the Spirit, in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Timothy Lull ed. (Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 78-9. ↑
Quoted by Timothy George, Reading Scripture with the Reformers (Intervarsity, 2011), 102. ↑
Ibid. ↑
For further discussion of the idea of an “illumination of the Spirit” for the correct interpretation and application of Scripture see chapter 3.5. ↑
John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Baker, 2004), 42. ↑
Reference unavailable. ↑
Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Intervarsity, 1991), 341. ↑
For further discussion of how Spirit-liberated reason affects our relationship with Scripture, see section 4.15.C. ↑
For further on Bible translation see Book 15. ↑
Quoted from section 3.1.C.3. ↑
J. I. Packer, Truth & Power (Harold Shaw, 1996), 297 ↑
For further discussion regarding the Roman Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility see section 13.7.A. ↑
For further discussion on Romanism’s historical denial of the right of private judgment see section 3.1.C.3. ↑
Herman Bavinck, Prolegomena, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 1 (Baker, 2003), 477-9. ↑
Thomas Aquinas quoted in Donald G. Bloesch, The Ground of Certainty (Eerdmans, 1971), 35. ↑
James White, Scripture Alone: Exploring The Bible’s Accuracy, Authority, And Authenticity (Bethany House, 2004), 94. ↑
Stuart Hackett, The Reconstruction of the Christian Revelation Claim (Baker, 1984), 260. ↑
For further discussion of the attack of postmodern theologians on the concept of human certainty see section 2.6.A.1. ↑
Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press, 2001), 149. ↑
Ibid., 252. ↑
Ibid., 157-183. ↑
Ibid., 83-123. ↑
Ibid., 153. ↑
For historical support for the right of private judgment, see section 3.1.C.3. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Mathison, 273. ↑
Ibid., 148. ↑
Ibid., 337. ↑
Ibid., 270. ↑
See Keith Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (P & R Publishing, 1999). ↑
Mathison, 240. ↑
Mathison, 251-52. ↑
Again, the reader is urged to consult section 3.1.C for a fuller description and defense of the right and God-given authority of private judgment. ↑