The Scripture and Plain Reason
May 8th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
When Martin Luther was summoned to the Diet of Worms in 1521 and asked to recant his teaching, he replied, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.”
Luther’s well-known formulation, “Scripture and plain reason,” is the only basis on which we can properly ground true spiritual discernment.
Scripture isn’t antithetical to sound, rational wisdom, though many today imagine otherwise. Reason is no substitute for Scripture, of course, but when good reason and sound logic are kept subject to the authority of Scripture, they are in no way a threat to the truth. On the contrary, the application of sound, logical thinking to the truth of Scripture is a key aspect of the formula for discernment.
Contrary to what a lot of people these days assume, discernment is not a mystical or intuitive ability to know the truth as if by magic. It is the skill of understanding, interpreting, and applying truth accurately. Discernment is a cognitive act. Therefore no one who spurns right doctrine or sound reason can be truly discerning.
Authentic spiritual discernment must begin with Scripture-revealed truth. Without a firm grounding in divine revelation, human reason always degenerates into skepticism (a denial that anything can be known for certain), rationalism (the theory that reason is a source of truth), secularism (an approach to life that purposely excludes God), or any number of other anti-Christian philosophies.
When Scripture condemns human wisdom (1 Cor. 3:19), it is not denouncing logic and reason per se, but humanistic ideology divorced from the divinely-revealed truth of God’s Word. In other words, reason apart from the Word of God leads inevitably to unsound ideas, but reason subjected to the Word of God is at the heart of wise spiritual discernment.
Great article. I think it was Luther who once said, ‘Reason is the servant of revelation, not it’s master.’
“In other words, reason apart from the Word of God leads inevitably to unsound ideas, but reason subjected to the Word of God is at the heart of wise spiritual discernment.”
Amen and amen!
“Contrary to what a lot of people these days assume, discernment is not a mystical or intuitive ability to know the truth as if by magic. It is the skill of understanding, interpreting, and applying truth accurately. Discernment is a cognitive act. Therefore no one who spurns right doctrine or sound reason can be truly discerning.”
Agreed. But scripture does present the existence of a Holy Spirit-given gift of discerning of spirits that is, in my view, subject to chapter and verse, but not necessarily dependent on it initially to function. Magic? Not in the classic or theological use of the word. But certainly supernatural.
Applying the scripture and plain reason is what shields us from making wild theological stretches such as those employed by the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Amen to this. If one cannot read the scripture on a desert island (not that sound theological exposition by good teachers isn’t helpful) and conclude something, then it probably wasn’t intended to be believed on by all. A plain reading of scripture would NEVER lead any reasoning person to the complex and bizarre practices and beliefs of some churches. I thank God I began reading the scriptures and finished most of them BEFORE going to church.
“Plain reason” may prove difficult to define, even in Luther’s case. Even for him it turned out that reigning philosophies of the day (nominalism, for example) provided a hermeneutical lens through which he saw Scripture. His “plain logic” led him to transubstantiation, let’s not forget! The same problem holds for the ante-Nicene church, which was sold out to Plato. Even those Fathers most opposed to philosophy (like Tertullian) freighted in philosophical notions he held to be “common sense” in a way that affected his theological views. His metaphysical materialism borrowed from Stoicism led him to believe in baptismal regeneration, as conversion “obviously” had to be effected materially.
On the other hand, without neo-Platonism being the ruling paradigm for “plain reason” in the church’s first centuries, we would have never arrived at the council of Chalcedon, or our nuanced understanding of the Trinity, with all of their subtle distinctions being indebted to philosophical categories they inherited.
So there’s no reason to believe that we shouldn’t be a little suspicious of “common sense” and “plain reason” in our own case any more than we are in theirs. What we think is “plain reason” always comes within a presupposed framework that we’re accepting, which is influenced not only by philosophy, but by culture, historical debates, economic status, personal experience, etc. We can see what those factors were for people like Tertullian, and we should be more ready to see what they are for ourselves.
At the same time there’s no reason to believe that drawing on “human philosophy” (fueled by creation-grace) can’t be a source of fruitful theological reflection on Scripture as long as we’re ready to have our presuppositions challenged (not just by our own understanding of Scripture, but by OTHER CHRISTIANS’ view of Scripture - people who don’t share our presuppositions).
David,
I would tend to emphasize this: “(not that sound theological exposition by good teachers isn’t helpful)” more than this: “I thank God I began reading the scriptures and finished most of them BEFORE going to church.”
Believers are to help believers learn and understand the Scriptures. No one is supposed to go it alone, no one is supposed to figure it out alone. More often than not, when an individual tries to interpret Scripture apart from the church, he moves in the direction of heresy. Certainly this is not always the case. I trust you are one of the exceptions. But while we should indeed read the Bible on our own, we should be involved with the community of faith as we wrestle with the meaning of Scripture and how to apply it to our lives.
1 Timothy 4:13 moves in this direction when Paul tells Timothy, “…devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.”
That said, we are each of us accountable for what we do with the Bible. The community of faith will not be held to account for whether or not I was faithful to the Bible. We must be faithful to Scripture, but part of being faithful means being active in the study of Scripture through the community of faith.
As for the article, I think MacArthur is correct in what he says about discernment, but that he should have said more. Andy offered a good clarification - that there is a supernatural gift of discernment given to some. Does it operate apart from Scripture? No, I don’t think so - so MacArthur’s words still stand. But God can supernaturally enable a person to better discern truth and falsehood, that study of Scripture alone does not guarantee one will have this gift of discernment.
And I think the definition given for discernment needs one additional element. Discernment is not just the right application of truth, it is also being able to “discern” (perceive, recognize, tell) whether or not truth is being applied rightly. But I might be splitting hairs.
Sharad,
Your last paragraph doesn’t sit well. It sounds like what Colossians 2:8 warns against. Good hermeneutics need to be at the forefront in order to rein in and (as necessary) alter our presuppositions. And it’s true that many interpreters never analyze their presuppositions.
“Drawing on human philosophy” for “fruitful reflection on Scripture” makes it sound as if Scripture itself is not authoritative over philosophy and human reflection. Is Scripture itself not sufficiently clear? Do we not have hermeneutics sufficient to get to the inspired single meaning? How will Scripture dismantle human philosophy is we say that human philosophy helps us understand it?
Hi, Jim. First, I should correct my previous statement that Luther believed in transubstantiation - he of course denied that! But his view of the sacramental union taking place in communion owed to philosophical notions (perhaps better, a philosophical reaction to certain philosophical notions) as well as any other view.
Your worry that Colossians 2:8 prohibits philosophical reflection on Scripture may be granting a meaning for the term that is more restrictive than Paul actually meant it to be. The addition of the coordinate phrase “empty deception” without the definite article suggests that he’s speaking about the particular philosophy at Colossae, not philosophy in general (as early interpreters have also noted). But more than that, the writers of the New Testament often draw on notions deriving from philosophies of the day (i.e. the Stoic resonance of “Logos”, Paul’s argument about “nature” in Rom. 1 and 1 Co. 11, appeals to “reason”, etc.).
Scripture obviously doesn’t come to us without mediation - the mediation of language, an ancient thought world, etc. I suppose if it were sufficiently clear, without the need of various tools to understand it, we wouldn’t need the mountain of resources we constantly appeal to in order to understand it, which include not just books of history and lexicons (which themselves depend on various philosophical convictions in methodology), but also theology and philosophy. Expositors regularly demonstrate that it isn’t as clear as all that!
As for how Scripture dismantles human philosophies, there are obviously different levels we could speak about “philosophy”. There’s the methodological level of analysis, at which it seems as though most people admit at least SOME philosophy (i.e. rudiments of logic, principles of reasoning, identifying fallacies). At the level of “worldview” we can speak of Christianity critiquing and competing with other philosophies even while admitting of ambiguity and disagreement on various passages of Scripture among Christians. But I think in each of these cases, Scripture functions as a positional authority, as the final court of appeal. In the process of having to appeal to Scripture, and justify our views there we’re forced to acknowledge that other Christians sometimes read it differently. In these cases, the church has a mandate to sharpen one another and critique one another’s use of Scripture by exposing our competing presuppositions, traditions, etc.
Hey, Jim - one more thing I should have mentioned, because it’s at the heart of your umbrage at the idea of philosophy overtaking Scripture - from whence do “good hermeneutics” spring, if not philosophical ruminations about how texts relate to authors and readers, predicated on philosophies of language? Is E.D. Hirsch’s masterwork on “single meaning” and authorial intent (i.e. “Validity in Interpretation”), or for that matter, any other hermeneutics textbook, not an exercise in “human reasoning”? Of course it is! Unfortunately, for human beings with human brains there’s no escaping human reasoning! That’s why I’m saying that philosophy is unavoidable, though it can be subjected to and shaped by the Spirit, in our reading Scripture with the Church (past and present).
Just a couple of observations about Col. 2:8,
Col. 2:8, Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
1. Wouldn’t the lack of the definite article make the statement general rather than definite? So rather than having “the” philosophy or “the” vain deceit in mind, perhaps the point is “a” philosophy and “a” vain deciet.
Thus although Paul may have a particular bad philosophy he dealing with, his statement is general. Makes sense and it is reflected in the rest of the verse.
2. Notice that the determining factor of wether or not a certain teaching is sound doctrine is that sound teaching is “after Christ.” That is, in accord with Christ teaching as reaveled in the Scriptures. Then those born again need to be decerners and evaluate any and all fads in light of what is revealed in Scripture.
I was reminded of 2 Peter two…the false teachers who deny Christ and with plastic (can be molded and twisted) words take advantage of people.
In a time of growing apostasy, I believe we as under-shepherds of God’s precious flock need to be very careful of what we are promoting. In Corinth, regarding their facination with human “wisdom”, Paul determined to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified. I believe that we need to heed the words of our Lord and realize that broad is the road that leads to destruction and there are many who are on that road. Many of them even believe that they are on the Lord’s side, but will hear those terrible words on that day, “depart from Me you doers of iniquity, I never knew you”. Scripture is sufficient and while many resources are available, we need to be primarily students of the one Book. May we be convinced of its sufficiency and may we avoid the mistakes of many who stray by absolute fidelity to the truth that alone sets us free.
Hi, Vince -
1. No, it wouldn’t. The word “philosophy” is preceded by an article. I was referring to the second coordinate phrase, “and empty deceit”. The lack of the article on the second clause together with the coordinating conjunction and articular noun preceding it indicates the entire prepositional phrase “διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης” is attempting to describe the same thing. In other words, the kind of philosophy that Paul is speaking against is the deceitful one making the rounds in Colossae.
2. There’s no question that Christ, as revealed in the Scriptures, is the gold standard for our belief and practice. The question is hermeneutical - i.e. how the Scriptures are to be understood in the first place. That’s why I could agree with Dirk (Hey, Dirk!) about the caution against human wisdom at the same time raising the question of what the authors of Scripture meant by those sorts of terms. Presumably they couldn’t have meant to erect standards they themselves didn’t keep (as I said, there are plenty of examples of biblical authors using philosophical categories they inherited both from Israel and from Greece). Hermeneutics is an inherently philosophical enterprise, whether one wishes to defend modern historical grammatical interpretation or the Medieval four-fold sense of Scripture. There’s no escaping it, except to pretend that one’s chosen philosophy isn’t operating.
I’ll let someone else have the last word on it.
Hi Sharad,
I’m not a good person for blogs–I don’t visit often enough to keep an intelligent dialog in progess. Nevertheless, I’ll take you up on the offer for the last word even though it may never be seen.
The issue upon which I disagree is that “hermeneutics is an inherently philosophical enterprise.” My point is that hermeneutics is the set of tools we must rigorously use to combat the problem you point out, “to pretend that one’s chosen philosophy isn’t operating.”
Hermeneutics is the discipline that should keep us from using our own world view as the starting point for interpretation. I need to set aside my world view (a battle which is part of the constant battle against the flesh) and work to get to the point of authorial intent. That includes discerning both the human author’s intended meaning of words and the divine Author’s use of them.
That’s how I see our philosophies and world views coming to be shaped by the Spirit–through constantly battling to recognize they are there, to strip them away from our work on the inspired text, and to strive always to get to the original meaning. It continues to amaze me how men starting with very different world views shaped by different cultures keep coming to the same meaning of Scripture.
Back into my hole until I emerge for the next pot shot
Jim